Generalizing, yeah, I do it

[Tina_gm]

So often on here, I, and sometimes others will make a comment, either about women tend to do such and such. men tend to do such and such, (or don't) gay men are more effeminate than straight men..... And immediately someone will counter with an example arguing what was just opined. Well, they ARE right, but then again, so am I.

Generalizing is for a purpose, and it is not always some great sin to do so IMO. It shows what is a likely scenario, a predictable outcome. I am a gambler, sort of. Let's say instead of betting on a number on the roulette wheel, I bet against one number. So basically I win unless that number comes up. So, all day I am winning like crazy, because I am betting against the number 4. Then bam, it comes up 3 straight times. The odds are of it coming up any one time are 38 to 1. The odds of it coming up 3 straight times?? (math wizards please) But after the second straight time, the odds are still 38 to 1 the very next time. The point is that yes, you will always find someone or something that breaks the typical, average, majority and predictable outcome if you search hard enough. I get that. I understand this completely.

I myself am far from living in some hole in the universe. I have quite a bit of life experience actually, have lived on both coasts, in rural and in the most urban of areas (Los Angeles) I was stationed in Germany for 3 years. I was single for 15 years of my adult life. (technically more) but I don't count living with someone, sharing your life with them to be single. If I had said to anyone that I had been with 3 different women the last year, not too many are going to find that to be offensive or that I live cavalier. Times that by 15 and that the total number was of a variable of different types of people,you do get a pretty good perspective on people. It is not the actual number of women I have been with btw, but a rounded idea of the amount of time spent single leading to a good amount of experience with differing types of women.

Stereotypes are for a reason, because they exist. It is not some imaginary construct. They can and are often used in a demeaning and destructive way, and I do try to avoid using them, but still, stereotypes do exist because that is generally the most common version of whatever is being stereotyped. The majority Thinks this, does that.... "oh but I don't, I know of a lot of people who don't fit that mold" But more do than don't.

We should by all means try to continue to expand ourselves, our lives, our way of being. At the same time, we need to not live in a bubble of accepting fantasy. Look at the anti transgender laws now being signed.... this is real people, and in Oxford Alabama, you are going to jail for 6 months for using the bathroom you identify as.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/28/health...bathroom-law/#

Lately I have used rednecks as a term in a generalizing manner... and gotten several replies of 'I am a redneck'and 'don't have any problems with rednecks"... and I am not arguing you, but I can tell you that I, living in upstate NY, not geographically, but anything above NYC is generally considered upstate. I can tell you that I live in a city. not a large one, but a city. However, this city, in the liberal northeast has an Alabama identity thing going on. This entire area of about 3 counties is a deep south section trapped in a northeast geographical area.

Not every single person who lives where I do is a racist phobic bigot, but more are then aren't, in an area that is supposedly liberal and tolerant. Laws are now being passed that target transgender people and putting them either firmly back in the closet, or in harms way... we get to choose, yay. They are being passed because of a majority of people, who are living in a stereotypical lifestyle are at war with us. More people than not are happy these laws are being passed, and unhappy when laws are passed which offer transgender people equal rights, and safety.

So yeah, I generalize. Hope y'all don't mind

[Nadine Spirit]

I am someone who has called people on their generalizations. I don't like them. I appreciate specificity in language. English is a vague language as it is. It really does not take much to attempt specificity and it often helps with clarity.

There is a difference between these two statements:

1 - Women have long hair.

2 - Many women have long hair.


In working with younger people, when my wife cut her hair super short, shaved in fact, kids went up to her and said "what did you do? Women have long hair." They did not mean - most women have long hair, so why did you cut yours short. They meant - you no longer look like a woman, because you did something that women do not do.

It is a hopeful generalization to assume that all people will automatically insert qualifiers into other's generalized statements, unfortunately it often does not happen. As well, those who do insert qualifiers are doing so based upon their own beliefs and not the speakers. If the speaker does not issue those qualifiers, who knows what they mean? If someone says, 'women have long hair,' what do they really mean? do they really mean, 'all women have long hair,' or do they mean 'many women have long hair?'

[LelaK]

Laws are now being passed that target transgender people ... More people than not are happy these laws are being passed, and unhappy when laws are passed which offer transgender people equal rights, and safety.

Can you cite solid evidence that most people somewhere don't want men to be allowed to wear dresses or to look like women in public? My asking doesn't mean I don't believe you. It means I'm not yet persuaded.

[mykell]

red·neck
ˈredˌnek/
noun-North American informal derogatory

noun: redneck; plural noun: rednecks

a working-class white person, especially a politically reactionary one from a rural area.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactionary

Political reactionaries are at the right-wing of a political spectrum; yet, reactionary ideologies can be radical, in the sense of political extremism, in service to re-establishing the status quo ante.

definitions bring clarity, interpretations are personal, as its defined i would say you would instinctively not go there.....derogatory, a similar term i guess i would find offensive "white trash" which folks use.
on one hand i understand how folks were put off by your comments and on another i find it hard that someone who would identify as being a "redneck" find theyre way here. so if im out of line please correct me but i dont think someone who thinks like say "ted cruz" would water here.

what i think is that for some folks this term is instead an endearing term for coming from the charming south united states, which it does not by definition.

i have been vocal of not generalizing here as of late and found that those who spew theyre truth do not accept that others may have a differing truth. i am also not a fan of stereotypes and find myself in more trouble than not when using or accepting them.
the very folks presenting some of these laws believe in theyre truth and my wife is one of them. but to me the bathroom situation justs needs a re-boot, single occupancy, like when a strip of port-o-johns are lined up at an event everyone uses the next available john. sounds easy enough.

sorry back on track, so who here is a redneck now ?
who here will make general statements about rednecks, as defined they are not our allies ?
who here will stereotype folks ?

yes i have made general statements here myself and been called out on them but am sensitive to try to be diligent to not make assumptions on anyone's part.
ive seen this thread re-hashed here a few times and feel that gendermutt is living with some unreasonable folks who "by definition" may be rednecks,
however as ive known gendermutt that no disrespect was ever intended towards anyone here in our community and would find it weird that anyone who "as defined" as a redneck would find it comfortable being here among us.

[Amy Lynn3]

What Nadine said.

[Pat]

I'd engage on this, but it fails the "what does this have to do with crossdressing?" test and I'm pretty sure it is going to disappear.

My short response is that generalizations always say more about the speaker than the subject.

[Tina_gm]

If one uses a qualifier, does that make it not a generalization? If anyone reads my posts, I almost always do use qualifiers, yet it does not appear that my using them is enough. Most rednecks, and by redneck I will use anyone who self describes themselves as one. Around where I live, there are a great many who call themselves redneck with pride. I am not using the word in a derogatory term. Many people around where I live use it call themselves that, self identify as that. They have no problem and likely prefer others to call them that. Not like a certain N word which some black people feel an entitlement to use for themselves or other black people, but you can only be black to use it otherwise it becomes a racist word.... which IMO is total BS. Same goes for any other group of people who feel they are entitled to a word or phrase they can use for themselves and be fine with but anyone else.... If they use it, call themselves that, who am I to argue...

Back to why I think it is ok to be able to generalize, which to me includes saying most, many etc etc... Reality. Mine is what it is. Someone elses may be completely different. Live in the village in Manhattan, you are more likely to be a majority than a minority if you are either gay or transgender. Same goes for Provincetown Mass. To say those areas are accepting areas for us is almost a false statement. Unless of course they do not accept themselves. How many self described rednecks live in those areas as opposed to how many live in say Oxford Alabama??? I think it is safe to say rednecks most do not like us. Ok, lets take out the qualifier. Rednecks don't like us. How far off am I, really?

[AllieSF]

I do not usually make a big fuss about "some" generalizations, but do for others. Sometimes generalizations are made as definitive statements when superlative and absolute statements are used, like "all", "never", "always", and so on. They are used by some here continually, but when they are rebuked or pressed on that "all" statement, they fall back on the "Well, almost all!" answer. Why not as Nadine states, just put in that simple one or two word qualifier when needed and avoid some of the usual rebuttals that then sidetrack and sometimes cause to be closed good topic threads? Since we are only reacting to what we read and perceive as the intent of someone's written word, it is very easy to misinterpret what was really meant. That has happened to me many times. I like and want clarity in writing to avoid its obvious pitfalls as seen in some posts and responses here.

Now, the example used by gendermutt does not bother me that much, because as pointed out in the definition provided by mikell, it is not a derogatory word when used correctly. I also understand that when used with words like "many", "most", and not "all", it can give a clear definition/description of what the surrounding geographical area may be like.

PS1: Gendermutt: "I think it is safe to say rednecks most do not like us. Ok, lets take out the qualifier. Rednecks don't like us. How far off am I, really?"

OK, here is an example of that. As with us Trans folk (using the umbrella definition, whether anyone likes that or not!), we cover a very large spectrum of how we fit in that term. The word/term "redneck" can also be along a spectrum. I truly believe that not "all" rednecks dismiss us and are against us. I also do believe that the majority of them do. So, in answer to your question, yes, your second statement could be far off from the actual facts. And again, back to a written word only forum where we individually interpret what we read, that statement could be taken incorrectly from your generalized all inclusive words and overall intent behind making that statement. Also, since you have stated that you make an effort to use qualifiers, just like I do, I would not cry foul if I read that from you knowing a little your general position on topics here, which I do respect.

PS2: This is the General section of this Forum and talking about how we communicate and are understood here is necessary from time to time. If the participants can remain civil and mature then these types of thread can help our other Trans topic threads be more successful. As with any threads, if one doesn't like them, they can skip just pass them over.

[Tonya Rose]

Not sure where this thread is coming from. But this Redneck Bi#*h Does not see how it pertains to Cross-dressing.... Youns Have a gr8 day!!!! LOL.
Country Gurl!!!

[NicoleScott]

If you think that whatever-causes-crossdressing somehow passes over rednecks, you would be wrong.

[Tonya Rose]

PS1: [B]Gendermutt: "I think it is safe to say rednecks most do not like us. Ok, lets take out the qualifier. Rednecks don't like us. How far off am I, really?" [/B

]
Careful Gendermutt Lot of rednecks here!!!!

[Tina_gm]

Redneck is an example, I am not actually having any particular issue. It is an example because they are among those who have the worst problems with us. Of course there are those who are so called rednecks and they are gay and transgender, but again, the majority, most, and I will say the VAST majority of those who consider themselves rednecks do not approve of gay, trans, or owning a foreign made vehicle for that matter.... Hit me with an exception or two or three all anyone wants, because for every one who is accepting or trans themselves as a redneck, I can show you more than we can all count who are not.

As for the purpose of this thread.... I think it is important that we do understand the realities, and not make every exception to a majority to nullify that majority. Because one out of 50 is different doesn't mean the other 49 doesn't count.

[Nadine Spirit]

I think the concern should not be in dismissing the 49, it is in dismissing the 1. Generalizing doesn't occur about a group because of the 1, it is because of the 49. By generalizing you are making the 49 be the main focus. Oftentimes to the detriment of the 1.

[ReineD]

Stereotypes are for a reason, because they exist. It is not some imaginary construct. They can and are often used in a demeaning and destructive way, and I do try to avoid using them, but still, stereotypes do exist because that is generally the most common version of whatever is being stereotyped.

Actually, no.

Stereotypes work well only when a homogenous group of people have the same understanding of that stereotype. You use the example "red neck" and if a bunch of people from the same area and background use that word, they likely will have a similar understanding or a similar mind's eye of what is meant. But, stereotypes do NOT work well in a diverse forum full of members with different socio/economic backgrounds who live in different geographic areas. Someone from one area will think "red neck" describes an amiable, down to earth sort of person, and someone from a different area will use the term to denote ignorance or bigotry, for example.

You know that a word is a stereotype, when it doesn't describe a person's character, personality, or values. The word "red neck" on its own really doesn't describe anything other than a person has a neck that is red.

So if you want to describe the attitudes of the people who live in your area, I would be more specific than just saying "red neck". You could say "men" in your area, but this on it's own wouldn't describe what you mean since the word "man" is not a stereotype. So you would need to describe their values, like "people who hold traditional views and who are not liberal on social issues like LGBT", if you are indeed referring to a group of people who are anti-LGBT.

At the same time, we need to not live in a bubble of accepting fantasy. Look at the anti transgender laws now being signed.... this is real people, and in Oxford Alabama, you are going to jail for 6 months for using the bathroom you identify as.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/28/health...bathroom-law/#

They won't last. They are unconstitutional and they will fall when challenged. They already have in a Virginia case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, under which North Carolina also resides. In the meantime, they are having precisely the effect they are intended to have, which is to keep people's focus off of economic issues that they don't want people to focus on, during a year when important people are elected into office. Think of it. Scalia died. If Democrats win, the Supreme Court (which rules over constitutional law as it affects big business in addition to LGBT and other matters), will lean to the left. If Republicans win, the court will lean to the right. So the stakes are pretty big. Right now, the Court is split 50/50.

[sometimes_miss]

The fact is that everyone generalizes about something. They reserve the right to criticize YOU, though, when you do it, which makes them hypocrites, but they won't admit to that, either. Same principle as those who say they never, ever lie.

"I think it is safe to say rednecks most do not like us. Ok, lets take out the qualifier. Rednecks don't like us. How far off am I, really?"

then

Careful Gendermutt Lot of rednecks here!!!!

OK, then how about we replace the word rednecks, with the word republicans? Because that's who's actually writing and passing these laws, and it appears that the majority of their constituents agree with them, as we see zero backlash from ANY well known republican voters about all the hateful laws that are springing up....NONE AT ALL. Those are the people out there at the conventions cheering Cruz, Trump, every republican politician when they spout their anti-female, anti LGBT agenda. While there are certainly a few republicans that side with reason, they're obviously in a tiny minority, as opposed to, say the tea party haters who have huge numbers of followers.

I used to be a republican. Now I can't stomach what they stand for. It's no longer about less regulation, it's about hating other groups of people, and MORE regulation to make those people's lives miserable. Anyone think Trump would put his sister on the supreme court so she can have that on her record?

[Tina_gm]

Lets take the autism spectrum, and lately the dominant part of it, Aspergers syndrome. To be diagnosed, you have to meet a criteria. Just having one or two very typical associated characteristics doesn't mean you are, but someone diagnosed doesn't also need every single associated characteristic either. They may have a couple of non asperger like characteristics, yet because they have a majority of them, they still are considered to have it. "But I know someone with these characteristics but they can still do this, or that, so I guess they aren't really??" No, they still are.

I give an example of redneck and somehow it is sending some of you on tilt. I am not sure why really, but, google it... look for the images and vids. See what comes up. Then go to social media and do the same.... and you are going to get the same damn things. Not a lot of variation at all here, lets be real ok.

I like country music, and have been to numerous concerts. That does not make me a redneck, but a whole lot of the people who were at these concerts were. Take for example the Toby Keith concert I went to. Tail gate party.... hmmm, a few thousand in the parking lots. I bet a could count the Obama supporters on one hand. Along with the black people who were NOT body guards or other security. Pick up trucks were by far the most common vehicle there. And not only that, American companies by such an overwhelming margin. A thousand pick up trucks and I could count the number of toyota or other non American trucks also on one hand.... Beer.... not a lot of variation on what beer they drank. Hey, I had a good time... but these were very very like minded people, who I think were cloned. I suppose the variation was the ones who drove an F series vs the dodge ram vs the Sierra..... yeah, that's it.

As for the laws, I have no doubt that they will be overturned in time. It is the fact that they will even write such laws in the 1st place, probably even knowing they won't hold up with the higher courts.

[heatherdress]

Unfortunately, this initial philosophical discussion which is essentially not even a true crossdressing discussion, tries to make a point for validating gross generalizations about people (e.g. -"most of the people who live in my area are "racist phobic bigots"). Instead of staying on track, it gets hijacked and knowingly becomes a political discussion which is contrary to site rules and honestly creates derision.

Nadine offered an intelligent response to the initial question and perhaps an approach to describing and maybe understanding others. Unfortunately, some members, ironically those who apparently believe they are accepting, open-minded and liberal, instead demonstrate their own narrow-minded, non-accepting comments filled with hate and unfounded fears. This should be a place where acceptance of others' beliefs is demonstrated and not ignored or attacked.


Crossdresser.com rules:

"The following content is NOT allowed ANYWHERE on the forum and will be deleted.

• Politics, with the exception of TG rights in the Media Section"

If you want to be accepted as a crossdresser by others, you have to, yourself, demonstrate acceptance of others.

[Tina_gm]

Nadine did make a good thoughtful post and I thank her for that. But let's say I make the comment, gay men tend to be effeminate. which already has the qualifier in it, tend And I will get a whole bunch of people jumping down on me say no no no no, there are ALL kinds of gay men and give examples. To which they are correct that there are, and I even know a couple myself. But that does not make my statement any less true, because it simply is. So what I am saying is that we should not be so hellbent on not saying the obvious sometimes, just because there ARE exceptions. We still live in a world where those who do not like us outnumber those who accept us.

As for not being judgemental, eh, when it comes to rednecks, I have several friends who are. Kinda hard not to where I live, or I suppose I could just hide in my house. But I see no real reason to have some carefree attitude toward rednecks in general when a large majority of them do not like TG people and are among the driving force seeking to take basic rights away from us. Sometimes we have to stand up to those who seek to oppress us.

[AllieSF]

Gendermutt, Me being a word smither, i.e. looking for the correct words to convey the correct meaning at the correct time that will be interpreted as originally intended, your statement "... gay men tend to be effeminate ..." infers to others that the majority of gay men tend to be effeminate when in fact that is not correct. Yes, the stereotypical gay man as depicted on television and some movies are portrayed that way. In San Francisco where I spend a lot of time amid the LGBT community, the effeminate ones are definitely in the minority. Gay men have told me that the effeminate types form part of their general population, but are in the minority. Therefore, your statement to me would be more accurate/correct if you said that "some gay men tend to be effeminate". Small difference in wording, not a lot of effort to add the clarifying word, and not attackable as inaccurate unless someone wants to bring some acceptable survey results to the conversation. Now, you personally may mean "some" and not the majority, but your statement says otherwise to those that read all the words. So, for clear communication to all of us varied people here, clear words sometimes are needed.