|Debating is a passion that few can master, I find.|
|Wait, what did you just say?|
|You can call a spade whatever the fuck|
you want to call it, because a spade is a
fucking inanimate object without an
internal sense of identity.
My colleague agreed that gender binary was an issue but to try and use preferred pronouns when in conversation away from the trans* person was confusing and shouldn't be pursued as it didn't allow a reasonable conversation about the issues. I was angry at this, I felt a bit betrayed by my colleague who I had always assumed was morally better than I and whose previous pronouncements had suggested that they would be arguing on my side rather than against it. I countered that objectivity may well exist but I couldn't presume to know it for myself, anything that I took as objective was necessarily subjective as being through me. I'm not a post-modernist, I believe that there is objective reality and I aspire to learn it but I am always willing to be told where I am wrong. This was apparently "telling me what I think" to my colleague who then made the, frankly, bullshit comparison that my way of thinking wouldn't allow a child to name a toaster a blender and refer to them both as the same item. I told my colleague that this was a "bollocks comparison" as it was not rooted in reality and made the bogus suggestion that my use of linguistics precluded reality - the same flaw as with the original Ferrari analogy - it assumed in the premise that reality was automatically different from the trans* person feelings and identity, which I believe to be dangerous. My colleague was riled, so I took the deflationary route here and apologised.
|Or, to put it another way, #sorrynotsorry|
In role, to Tilly and to my colleagues around us in the pub, I professed upset that I had offended my colleague. Gave apologies. Made out that the debate was "for fun" and that I had not realised that I was offending my colleague. I sought calm, I sought an end to the confrontation. I had gone too far. Without revealed more of myself there was no way of showing what was going on in that debate and why I felt it was important to have it. So I backed down and apologised. But I remain angered by it. Fuck my colleague. Fuck all of them for letting the analogy stand as a 'reasonable' way to have discourse on transfolk.
Or, is this just my autism. Is this just my giant inflated ego and sense of self-important entitlement? Should I even have forced the debate? Should I have got my head down and moved on to the next topic of silliness? Or, having forced the debate, let it lie and not challenge the implicit privilege in the initial analogy (that still has me spitting feathers) in the interests of not poisoning such an important topic in the eyes of people who are struggling to deal with the implications of someone else going through it in their own reality?