Talk:Alterhuman: Difference between revisions
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Vagabondsun in topic Bias in controversy section?
Content added Content deleted
imported>DragonheartCollective (Created page with "Might be a good idea to make the controversy section on this page be less biased against those who dislike or criticize the term in any way. In particular; "Plurals who object to the term are often motivated by sysmedicalist beliefs.[16][17]" Isnt terribly neutral and we kinda take offense to that as a very pro-endo nonhuman system with spiritual elements. We strongly dislike plurality being included as alterhuman personally both because the wider plural community wasnt...") |
imported>Vagabondsun (→Bias in controversy section?: reply) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== Bias in controversy section? == |
|||
Might be a good idea to make the controversy section on this page be less biased against those who dislike or criticize the term in any way. In particular; "Plurals who object to the term are often motivated by sysmedicalist beliefs.[16][17]" Isnt terribly neutral and we kinda take offense to that as a very pro-endo nonhuman system with spiritual elements. |
Might be a good idea to make the controversy section on this page be less biased against those who dislike or criticize the term in any way. In particular; "Plurals who object to the term are often motivated by sysmedicalist beliefs.[16][17]" Isnt terribly neutral and we kinda take offense to that as a very pro-endo nonhuman system with spiritual elements. |
||
We strongly dislike plurality being included as alterhuman personally both because the wider plural community wasnt consulted before inclusion, and because if plurality is included by default and not other neurotypes or spiritual experiences it comes off as wildly ableist and dehumanizing in the bad way. |
We strongly dislike plurality being included as alterhuman personally both because the wider plural community wasnt consulted before inclusion, and because if plurality is included by default and not other neurotypes or spiritual experiences it comes off as wildly ableist and dehumanizing in the bad way. |
||
Here is a whole thread with multiple criticims that should be acknowledged (ours are included in it) https://nonhumannationalpark.boards.net/thread/796/alterhuman-thoughts-problems-opinions |
Here is a whole thread with multiple criticims that should be acknowledged (ours are included in it) https://nonhumannationalpark.boards.net/thread/796/alterhuman-thoughts-problems-opinions |
||
: that's absolutely a fair point, and the current state of things just reflects the fact that that's the only viewpoint we had found a source for so far. the source you provided should help fix that! |
|||
: (also, hope you don't mind that i gave this a heading for organizational purposes) [[User:Vagabondsun|<span style="color:#BD33A4">vagabondsun</span>]] <small>(it/its + he/him)</small> | [[User_talk:Vagabondsun|<span style="color:#BD33A4">talk</span>]] ✨ [[Special:Contributions/Vagabondsun|<span style="color:#BD33A4">contrib</span>]] 22:48, 20 February 2023 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 22:48, 20 February 2023
Bias in controversy section?
Might be a good idea to make the controversy section on this page be less biased against those who dislike or criticize the term in any way. In particular; "Plurals who object to the term are often motivated by sysmedicalist beliefs.[16][17]" Isnt terribly neutral and we kinda take offense to that as a very pro-endo nonhuman system with spiritual elements. We strongly dislike plurality being included as alterhuman personally both because the wider plural community wasnt consulted before inclusion, and because if plurality is included by default and not other neurotypes or spiritual experiences it comes off as wildly ableist and dehumanizing in the bad way. Here is a whole thread with multiple criticims that should be acknowledged (ours are included in it) https://nonhumannationalpark.boards.net/thread/796/alterhuman-thoughts-problems-opinions
- that's absolutely a fair point, and the current state of things just reflects the fact that that's the only viewpoint we had found a source for so far. the source you provided should help fix that!
- (also, hope you don't mind that i gave this a heading for organizational purposes) vagabondsun (it/its + he/him) | talk ✨ contrib 22:48, 20 February 2023 (UTC)