THE END (of gender lang/bio-ethics edebate for me)
Sat Apr 15 22:27:52 CDT 2000
You're right! Moral relativism rules, cause who's to say whats good and
bad? Because there's a contingent of people that think sexist language is
good, it would be wrong to tell them otherwise, because that would be
intolerant, and that's bad.... err... whatever-- Different strokes for
different folks, right?
----- Original Message -----
From: Katy Kasmai <kkasmai1 at OSF1.GMU.EDU>
To: <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
Sent: Saturday, April 15, 2000 10:50 PM
Subject: THE END (of gender lang/bio-ethics edebate for me)
> To those who are in on the Bio-Ethics/Gender Debate:
> After returning from my "trip", Ive come to discover +80 emails, mostly
> about gender language. I was going to read them and probably respond
> seeing it as how "I started it", BUT I have decided not to for the
> following reasons (first there are too many to do so, and now moving on
> down the page) (i believe im covering everything, forgive any errors or
> A. Morality/Ethics/all that good stuff is not Debatable in terms of right
> or wrong for everyone.
> 1. I have been asked by several to try to understand why "others"
> may feel degraded by gender language "miss-use"....and after reading
> several (I use that term loosely) emails as to why others supposedly do
> feel marginalized I have found no compelling reason as to why gender
> language usage is sooo important. Furthermore, none of the "others" have
> even bothered to try to understand my perception and as to why I dont find
> any impacts to gender language.
> 2. No two people share the same so-called moral values [package].
> People grow up in different atmospheres and cant control what they learn
> (as far as im concerned). So just because someone finds gender language
> offensive doesnt mean nor will it ever mean that the rest of the world
> will give a rat's ass nor should they.
> exp. if one where to use "wrongful" gender language, and made
> someone else feel marginalized that doesnt mean (1) that one should start
> caring nor (2) that one will understand why some would feel marginalized
> (3) what not using gender language will ever solve. So with that said,
> you cant debate gender lang. K with someone who doesnt believe that anyone
> should feel marginalized and cant understand why [or doesnt believe in
> B. Since no truth can EVER be achieved we can stop now
> 1. Youre not ever going to change my mind, and Ill continue to
> believe that gender language K's are overrated and Im not going to ever
> change yours...at least not over EDEBATE. So if you plan on running that
> K on me (not that anyone runs genderKritiks on womyn/women)
> anytime soon...I will answer with a "I dont care" (and of course the
> stuff, and great the "waste of time" speech)...AND then itll be your word
> of how you feel marginalized against mine as to how I DONT FEEL
> marginalized...whos argument is truer??? Good Luck. ill give you a dollar
> and a cookie if you tell me the right answer...oh oh could it be a trick
> 2. Whats the point? If you feel the way you do then run the
> Kritik. If you dont, then dont run it. But I will always continue to not
> understand every time I Debate/judge/hear about any team running Gender
> K's....(and maybe its not just me)
> 3. on the apology -- I really have nothing to say except youll
> never hear me apologize for using "wrongful" gender language; so
> sincerity/insincerity isnt going to be what you need to worry about.
> C. Bio-Ethics - the real starting point of the Debate (i havent lost
> 1. I still dont want to Debate "pro-choice" args. I think its (1)
> too emotional (2) has no truth behind it because its all opinions.
> 2. It doesnt matter that Abortion was debated in '91. That was a
> decade ago for one. And (2) a "precedence has been set since this past
> year" of the many many tears shed on Feminism/gender language debates;
> such debates (from what i understand) where not common, whereas they seem
> to be now. Such args are also very closely related to "pro-choice" args.
> but I think "pro-choice" args affect more opinions and more emotions....so
> the tear percentage increases substantially, which lead us to the next
> 3. The chances of having to debate "pro-choice" args. are higher
> in probability with a topic like "ETHICS"; thus the level of education and
> thinking w/o emotions (which is necessary for best human rationalizing)
> deteriorates. Policy debate will become something like L-D; then I ask
> you why call it Policy? Ethics is not Policy, we must not debate it in
> policy debate(in my humble opinion).
> 4. Inevitable increase of potential hostility will deteriorate
> education in Debate. More people in bathrooms crying, not debating.
> More people disliking each other after in-round "fights". Again, my A
> sub-point "No truth arg" can be referred to this: arguing for who is right
> or wrong in a world of ethics and morality will never end, at least not in
> a debate round...thus carry over to out of round relations, and in round
> instability (hate to see someone running out and crying again).
> In conclusion, I have debated not to pressure change on anyone's mind but
> only to state that I do not want to debate anything "pro-choice" and do
> not believe in any truth to ethics or morality; in hopes that the majority
> on this debate will speak up (which has become inconclusive, will be
> determined by topic chosen). I am not persuaded by the gender Kritik and
> its supposed legitimacy and still do not understand it. No I am not lucky
> that I dont feel marginalized (I dont believe in luck), and no its not a
> choice to not feel marginalized.... I JUST DONT, its not in my mentality;
> sorry (insincere) to disappoint you, BUT i am happy not giving a *#!$.
> reading posts as they come,
> "all hail the mighty gender kritik, you MUST now Lose"
> Katy Kasmai
> George Mason University
> GMU DEBATE Team
> Information Technology & Engineering School Senator
> Fairfax, VA
More information about the Mailman