-
All good points.
I'm clearly aware of the stark difference between someone born one gender and feeling another and that of a person choosing to read the DM. I thought I was obvious in my coding of those two subjects for their recency. Maybe I should have tried harder.
I'm still interested in the point though, what is and isn't offensive and who is deciding? Generally, and ere on lufguss?
deleted-
All good points.
I'm clearly aware of the stark difference between someone born one gender and feeling another and that of a person choosing to read the DM
Just FYI, you being clearly aware of these differences is not as clear from your posts as you may hope.
-
I'm still interested in the point though, what is and isn't offensive and who is deciding? Generally, and ere on lufguss?
The groups normative values as they exist at that time.
Generally, no one on here would blink at a post that was be deeply and unnecessarily offensive to a religious person of any denomination, unless the group deemed it to include a racial element.
It just depends what a group thinks is, or isn't, important.
mashton
hugo7
Hi Dov, I'll try to point out some of the differences that appear to me between the gammon daily mail reader and the trans kid. Also some other points of interest that occur to me:
Reading the mail is a choice that the reader actively makes. Being trans is accepted as a birth attribute, like eye colour.
The mocked traits and activities of the Mail and the gammonesque reader of it, are ones that subjugate and demean broad swathes of people. They bring misery and pain with them. Being trans, not so much.
There is a duty of care and sympathy in the relationship between a parent and child that is larger, more subtle, and carries a greater weight of responsibility than that between the Mail and it's readership. It is the failure of this parental relationship that was the subject of the jibe.
I am not sure but I think you were wondering about the very word "gammon" and if it is comparable to racial, homophobic, gender, ablist slurs. I think this is, to some extent, valid but there is a subtle difference between two. The birth attribute slurs are warranted only by an accident of birth. No conscious choice made by the female, trans, gay, disabled, black etc person. To be gammon is to have arrived at a world view that makes you red faced with anger at a liberal position. The gammonfication of one's visage is an expression of a political view, not a birth trait.
I expect there are more points to be made, but I have finished shitting and need to wipe my arse. No bidet here, sadly. I could go a rimming.