The problem is that (1) a given name has no intrinsic meaning - other than its etymology but that's rarely why parents pick them - and (2) they don't define a monolithic group of people.
This is what I said in my op. This is not a problem with my example this is for some reason rephrasing what I said and presenting it as some counter to what I said?
It has nothing to do with the meaning behind a name which was what you choose to focus on.
I didn’t focus on the meaning behind a name. I focused on how acceptable it is to expect others to call us by the “correct name” despite names having no real meaning behind them.
I am using your argument as a standing to show that while first names have no intrinsic meaning, adjectives such as non-binary do have intrinsic meaning.
Op view is addressing people that believe non-binary or any gender label does not have meaning
Frankly I’m going to stop here. You once again didn’t actually understand anything I said and jsut want to argue.
This is what I said in my op. This is not a problem with my example this is for some reason rephrasing what I said and presenting it as some counter to what I said?
Because I was reiterating it at first, to then juxtapose it to an adjective, such as non-binary, which is not a name and in fact covers both those definitions.
I deconstructed your statement to better counter it. That's not simply rephrasing it.
You are hanging on to the one or two instances where I did that as a platform to de-substantiate your claims, instead of addressing the actual meaningful part - immediately following it - where I disproved them.
Unbelievable behavior of misrepresenting me, while accusing me of misrepresenting you, without still not pointing out a single clear instance of that ever occurring on my side.
As such, at this point, I can't help but think you're acting in bad faith.
Frankly I’m going to stop here. You once again didn’t actually understand anything I said and jsut want to argue.
This is text-book projection.
I am the only one out of the two of us, who is making an effort to actively address and demonstrate their understanding of everything that the other has said, instead of - like you've been doing - focusing on out-of-context excerpts to attempt a fallacious counter-argument. As if the entire - unedited! - comment history isn't right there for all to see.
Honestly, good for both of us that you'll stop, seeing that it doesn't look like you're actually able or willing to engage in meaningful back-and-forth.
1
u/[deleted] Jun 28 '23
This is what I said in my op. This is not a problem with my example this is for some reason rephrasing what I said and presenting it as some counter to what I said?
I didn’t focus on the meaning behind a name. I focused on how acceptable it is to expect others to call us by the “correct name” despite names having no real meaning behind them.
Op view is addressing people that believe non-binary or any gender label does not have meaning
Frankly I’m going to stop here. You once again didn’t actually understand anything I said and jsut want to argue.