Good news in the pronoun wars: $400k payout for professor

[Metaphor]

It is a bit of a mystery why some people in the civilian world want to belittle and intimidate others by using inappropriate pronouns.

It is a bit of a mystery why you think people 'in the civilian world' want to do that. You are begging the question.

Do you know why some people express hostility about using the pronoun a particular person prefers?

Yes: because it is trying to compel somebody's speech, and, in some cases, forcing them to say things they do not believe.

Is there some altruistic motive behind this kind of behavior?

It depends on what you mean by "altruism". For example, when black people fought for civil rights in America in the 1960s, they surely stood to gain personally, but other people also stood to gain.

"Trying to compel somebody's speech" is an interesting take on it. If a person chooses to demonstrate antisocial behavior,, or as I said in an earlier post, be an insufferable prick, they can expect to have a social stigma put upon them. It's really no different than when Black people fought for the civil rights and racists became to be seen as insufferable pricks.

Perhaps in a generation those who insist that misprouning people is an act of defying tyranny will be seen in the same light as those who once refused to concede that Cassius Clay is now known as Mohammed Ali. It's pretty much the same thing.

You can change your name. You can't change your sex.

A person with a vulva changes their name to John Robert and that's okay, but you draw the line at him and his. Got it.

Of course it's okay. People have changed their names throughout history. I used to live next door to a man who changed his last name to 'Death'.

You can't change your sex. I'm sorry if I draw the line at 'reality'.

I presume he didn't wander the neighborhood in a black robe and carrying a scythe.

No. This was a long time ago so I don't remember him well, but no, he didn't do that. I assume he just thought it was edgy to have that last name.

Okay, a quick update. A person can choose a name which seems inappropriate for their current vital signs, or a name not generally associated with their genital status, as you perceive it, and you are happy to accede to their wishes. You'll call a living person Death and someone you believe to be a man, Mary, simply because they requested you to do so.

However, you are offended if Mr. Death wants to be a she

I'm not offended. I just understand it is literally impossible for Mr Death to change sex, and I don't want the State to force me to pretend he is a she. The Australian government has punished people for "misgendering".

and this strains your social graciousness to the point you feel justified in returning the offense.

I am not offended, and calling biological males 'he' is not returning an offense. Not practising your religion or participating in your delusion is not 'returning an offense'.

If you issue the disclaimer, "No offense intended," before using a pronoun which a person does not want used for them, I'm sure no one will think less of you because of it.

Why would I issue any such disclaimer? Why should the default presumption be that I intend offense?

 

[TomC]

Why would I issue any such disclaimer? Why should the default presumption be that I intend offense?

Because the vast majority of informed people recognize that polite pronoun usage has nothing to do with sex. The default presumption for not using polite language is intentional offense.
Tom

 

[Metaphor]

Why would I issue any such disclaimer? Why should the default presumption be that I intend offense?

Because the vast majority of informed people recognize that polite pronoun usage has nothing to do with sex.

Do they? How have you arrived at this conclusion?

The default presumption for not using polite language is intentional offense.
Tom

I use polite language all the time, but if I use language other people perceive as impolite, that says something about their perception, not my intention.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yeah it’s weird that they start screaming about religious freedom because they have this intense desire to dictate absolute precision (in their minds) in pronouns of other people. “I will not be made to tell a lie abut your ‘religious belief’ about your gender!!1!” It’s so strangely incongruent.

It reminds me of a discussion with a fundy family about halloween costumes, where they were INCENSED that their son wanted to be a female dog.

Like, it’s okay to pretend to be a dog, as long as it’s not a girl dog?

They are really interesting the way the pick this one thing to be hysterical about.

I'd be somewhat worried about that--how is a dog costume male or female?? To want to be a female dog vs just a dog makes me wonder what's going on.

 

[Bomb#20]

Why would I issue any such disclaimer? Why should the default presumption be that I intend offense?

Because the vast majority of informed people recognize that polite pronoun usage has nothing to do with sex.

Do they? How have you arrived at this conclusion?

By defining people who disagree as "uninformed", perhaps? That's a heck of a lot less work than collecting statistically significant empirical evidence.

 

[Bronzeage]

It is a bit of a mystery why some people in the civilian world want to belittle and intimidate others by using inappropriate pronouns.

It is a bit of a mystery why you think people 'in the civilian world' want to do that. You are begging the question.

Do you know why some people express hostility about using the pronoun a particular person prefers?

Yes: because it is trying to compel somebody's speech, and, in some cases, forcing them to say things they do not believe.

Is there some altruistic motive behind this kind of behavior?

It depends on what you mean by "altruism". For example, when black people fought for civil rights in America in the 1960s, they surely stood to gain personally, but other people also stood to gain.

"Trying to compel somebody's speech" is an interesting take on it. If a person chooses to demonstrate antisocial behavior,, or as I said in an earlier post, be an insufferable prick, they can expect to have a social stigma put upon them. It's really no different than when Black people fought for the civil rights and racists became to be seen as insufferable pricks.

Perhaps in a generation those who insist that misprouning people is an act of defying tyranny will be seen in the same light as those who once refused to concede that Cassius Clay is now known as Mohammed Ali. It's pretty much the same thing.

You can change your name. You can't change your sex.

A person with a vulva changes their name to John Robert and that's okay, but you draw the line at him and his. Got it.

Of course it's okay. People have changed their names throughout history. I used to live next door to a man who changed his last name to 'Death'.

You can't change your sex. I'm sorry if I draw the line at 'reality'.

I presume he didn't wander the neighborhood in a black robe and carrying a scythe.

No. This was a long time ago so I don't remember him well, but no, he didn't do that. I assume he just thought it was edgy to have that last name.

Okay, a quick update. A person can choose a name which seems inappropriate for their current vital signs, or a name not generally associated with their genital status, as you perceive it, and you are happy to accede to their wishes. You'll call a living person Death and someone you believe to be a man, Mary, simply because they requested you to do so.

However, you are offended if Mr. Death wants to be a she

I'm not offended. I just understand it is literally impossible for Mr Death to change sex, and I don't want the State to force me to pretend he is a she. The Australian government has punished people for "misgendering".

and this strains your social graciousness to the point you feel justified in returning the offense.

I am not offended, and calling biological males 'he' is not returning an offense. Not practising your religion or participating in your delusion is not 'returning an offense'.

If you issue the disclaimer, "No offense intended," before using a pronoun which a person does not want used for them, I'm sure no one will think less of you because of it.

Why would I issue any such disclaimer? Why should the default presumption be that I intend offense?

Gee. Let's see if we can analyze this and find and answer for you. A person has a personal preference about how others refer to them and you choose to ignore this, because you think your grasp on the reality of their life is superior to theirs. Such a person is likely to think you have done this with the intention of belittling them and denigrate the challenges they face in daily life.

At best, they may write this off a social ineptitude and at worst, that you are not a nice person.

 

[Metaphor]

It is a bit of a mystery why some people in the civilian world want to belittle and intimidate others by using inappropriate pronouns.

It is a bit of a mystery why you think people 'in the civilian world' want to do that. You are begging the question.

Do you know why some people express hostility about using the pronoun a particular person prefers?

Yes: because it is trying to compel somebody's speech, and, in some cases, forcing them to say things they do not believe.

Is there some altruistic motive behind this kind of behavior?

It depends on what you mean by "altruism". For example, when black people fought for civil rights in America in the 1960s, they surely stood to gain personally, but other people also stood to gain.

"Trying to compel somebody's speech" is an interesting take on it. If a person chooses to demonstrate antisocial behavior,, or as I said in an earlier post, be an insufferable prick, they can expect to have a social stigma put upon them. It's really no different than when Black people fought for the civil rights and racists became to be seen as insufferable pricks.

Perhaps in a generation those who insist that misprouning people is an act of defying tyranny will be seen in the same light as those who once refused to concede that Cassius Clay is now known as Mohammed Ali. It's pretty much the same thing.

You can change your name. You can't change your sex.

A person with a vulva changes their name to John Robert and that's okay, but you draw the line at him and his. Got it.

Of course it's okay. People have changed their names throughout history. I used to live next door to a man who changed his last name to 'Death'.

You can't change your sex. I'm sorry if I draw the line at 'reality'.

I presume he didn't wander the neighborhood in a black robe and carrying a scythe.

No. This was a long time ago so I don't remember him well, but no, he didn't do that. I assume he just thought it was edgy to have that last name.

Okay, a quick update. A person can choose a name which seems inappropriate for their current vital signs, or a name not generally associated with their genital status, as you perceive it, and you are happy to accede to their wishes. You'll call a living person Death and someone you believe to be a man, Mary, simply because they requested you to do so.

However, you are offended if Mr. Death wants to be a she

I'm not offended. I just understand it is literally impossible for Mr Death to change sex, and I don't want the State to force me to pretend he is a she. The Australian government has punished people for "misgendering".

and this strains your social graciousness to the point you feel justified in returning the offense.

I am not offended, and calling biological males 'he' is not returning an offense. Not practising your religion or participating in your delusion is not 'returning an offense'.

If you issue the disclaimer, "No offense intended," before using a pronoun which a person does not want used for them, I'm sure no one will think less of you because of it.

Why would I issue any such disclaimer? Why should the default presumption be that I intend offense?

Gee. Let's see if we can analyze this and find and answer for you. A person has a personal preference about how others refer to them

And as we have seen on this and other threads, there are all kinds of personal preferences that you and others are willing to not respect, such as using bug/bugself, or lord/master.

So, why must I respect some pronouns and not others?

 

[Bomb#20]

So @Bomb#20, it would be really useful at this point, for establishing good faith, to just acknowledge, whether or not you knew already, "Sigma, it is indeed obvious that people are born transgender, and affirmation is clearly necessary for transgender people's health, especially that of transgender youth." Again, I do not care a button whether you already knew or not. I just need us to clear that communication hurdle, so I can know if it is okay to stop reposting those links.

It's not clear why you posted them in the first place; but I guess I need to congratulate you on having the sense not to post them a third time and become a living example of "What I tell you three times is true." But as far as I can see they have no bearing on any dispute I'm having with you; you seem to have invented out of whole cloth some position for me that you keep arguing against even though I've given you no reason to think whatever position you're fighting against is mine.

Further, it's not clear why you imagine I would need to agree with your above assertion in order to "establish good faith". As far as I can see you haven't offered any evidence for it. There were no babies in the studies you posted. How the heck do you figure anisotropy in diffusion in the brains observed in teenagers and adults says anything one way or the other about whether the anisotropy arose before they were born or during childhood? You'd have to measure it in newborns to find that out. For that matter, why do you care so much? What's so bloody important about the moment of birth that it would make a difference whether transgendered are born that way? You know all humans are preemies, right? We were naturally selected to be born early so our massively oversized brains won't kill our mothers on the way out. Our brains keep developing along a preprogrammed schedule for years after we're born, same as the rest of our anatomy. So if it turns out transgenderism isn't determined until some brain cells grow this way instead of that way at the age of two, what's the big deal? Why is that any more important than if it happens 8 months after conception so most transgendered people are born that way but not the ones who pop out after 7 months? Why should that affect anybody's decisions?

If what you keep posting links to prove is that people are transgendered because of brain anatomy, who do you think you're talking to, a Christian? You think I think it's caused by having a sinful immortal soul or something? I'm an atheist! Of course it's caused by brain anatomy! I don't need a study to tell me that. What else besides brain anatomy could cause it?

Now, when you spread around rhetoric that could stir up fear against transgender people, you make their situation not only awkward but dangerous. Fear makes people dangerous, whether you mean for it to or not. When people are afraid of me, they become dangerous to me.

Why do you keep laying that at my door? What the hell rhetoric am I spreading that you think makes people afraid of you? Where the bejesus have I posted anything critical of transgendered people? You think pointing out that people who don't give a rat's ass about the First Amendment tend to be a problem for the rest of us is somehow by magic instilling fear of everybody with gender dysphoria? Is there anything else I say that causes people to be afraid of you? Should I keep my mouth shut about nuclear power being the safe and sane way to stop global warming in case somebody takes that as incitement to beat up trans people?

Trans people does not equal woke people. If we mustn't criticize stupid religions, then what's the point of having a forum for infidels?

I am not some cult that is trying to oppress you,

Nobody said you were. This isn't about you. This is about Shawnee State and its administrators' apparent preference for an ideological monoculture.

 

[Bronzeage]

It is a bit of a mystery why some people in the civilian world want to belittle and intimidate others by using inappropriate pronouns.

It is a bit of a mystery why you think people 'in the civilian world' want to do that. You are begging the question.

Do you know why some people express hostility about using the pronoun a particular person prefers?

Yes: because it is trying to compel somebody's speech, and, in some cases, forcing them to say things they do not believe.

Is there some altruistic motive behind this kind of behavior?

It depends on what you mean by "altruism". For example, when black people fought for civil rights in America in the 1960s, they surely stood to gain personally, but other people also stood to gain.

"Trying to compel somebody's speech" is an interesting take on it. If a person chooses to demonstrate antisocial behavior,, or as I said in an earlier post, be an insufferable prick, they can expect to have a social stigma put upon them. It's really no different than when Black people fought for the civil rights and racists became to be seen as insufferable pricks.

Perhaps in a generation those who insist that misprouning people is an act of defying tyranny will be seen in the same light as those who once refused to concede that Cassius Clay is now known as Mohammed Ali. It's pretty much the same thing.

You can change your name. You can't change your sex.

A person with a vulva changes their name to John Robert and that's okay, but you draw the line at him and his. Got it.

Of course it's okay. People have changed their names throughout history. I used to live next door to a man who changed his last name to 'Death'.

You can't change your sex. I'm sorry if I draw the line at 'reality'.

I presume he didn't wander the neighborhood in a black robe and carrying a scythe.

No. This was a long time ago so I don't remember him well, but no, he didn't do that. I assume he just thought it was edgy to have that last name.

Okay, a quick update. A person can choose a name which seems inappropriate for their current vital signs, or a name not generally associated with their genital status, as you perceive it, and you are happy to accede to their wishes. You'll call a living person Death and someone you believe to be a man, Mary, simply because they requested you to do so.

However, you are offended if Mr. Death wants to be a she

I'm not offended. I just understand it is literally impossible for Mr Death to change sex, and I don't want the State to force me to pretend he is a she. The Australian government has punished people for "misgendering".

and this strains your social graciousness to the point you feel justified in returning the offense.

I am not offended, and calling biological males 'he' is not returning an offense. Not practising your religion or participating in your delusion is not 'returning an offense'.

If you issue the disclaimer, "No offense intended," before using a pronoun which a person does not want used for them, I'm sure no one will think less of you because of it.

Why would I issue any such disclaimer? Why should the default presumption be that I intend offense?

Gee. Let's see if we can analyze this and find and answer for you. A person has a personal preference about how others refer to them

And as we have seen on this and other threads, there are all kinds of personal preferences that you and others are willing to not respect, such as using bug/bugself, or lord/master.

So, why must I respect some pronouns and not others?

You don't have to. The consequences for your antisocial behavior rest solely on you.

 

[Metaphor]

It is a bit of a mystery why some people in the civilian world want to belittle and intimidate others by using inappropriate pronouns.

It is a bit of a mystery why you think people 'in the civilian world' want to do that. You are begging the question.

Do you know why some people express hostility about using the pronoun a particular person prefers?

Yes: because it is trying to compel somebody's speech, and, in some cases, forcing them to say things they do not believe.

Is there some altruistic motive behind this kind of behavior?

It depends on what you mean by "altruism". For example, when black people fought for civil rights in America in the 1960s, they surely stood to gain personally, but other people also stood to gain.

"Trying to compel somebody's speech" is an interesting take on it. If a person chooses to demonstrate antisocial behavior,, or as I said in an earlier post, be an insufferable prick, they can expect to have a social stigma put upon them. It's really no different than when Black people fought for the civil rights and racists became to be seen as insufferable pricks.

Perhaps in a generation those who insist that misprouning people is an act of defying tyranny will be seen in the same light as those who once refused to concede that Cassius Clay is now known as Mohammed Ali. It's pretty much the same thing.

You can change your name. You can't change your sex.

A person with a vulva changes their name to John Robert and that's okay, but you draw the line at him and his. Got it.

Of course it's okay. People have changed their names throughout history. I used to live next door to a man who changed his last name to 'Death'.

You can't change your sex. I'm sorry if I draw the line at 'reality'.

I presume he didn't wander the neighborhood in a black robe and carrying a scythe.

No. This was a long time ago so I don't remember him well, but no, he didn't do that. I assume he just thought it was edgy to have that last name.

Okay, a quick update. A person can choose a name which seems inappropriate for their current vital signs, or a name not generally associated with their genital status, as you perceive it, and you are happy to accede to their wishes. You'll call a living person Death and someone you believe to be a man, Mary, simply because they requested you to do so.

However, you are offended if Mr. Death wants to be a she

I'm not offended. I just understand it is literally impossible for Mr Death to change sex, and I don't want the State to force me to pretend he is a she. The Australian government has punished people for "misgendering".

and this strains your social graciousness to the point you feel justified in returning the offense.

I am not offended, and calling biological males 'he' is not returning an offense. Not practising your religion or participating in your delusion is not 'returning an offense'.

If you issue the disclaimer, "No offense intended," before using a pronoun which a person does not want used for them, I'm sure no one will think less of you because of it.

Why would I issue any such disclaimer? Why should the default presumption be that I intend offense?

Gee. Let's see if we can analyze this and find and answer for you. A person has a personal preference about how others refer to them

And as we have seen on this and other threads, there are all kinds of personal preferences that you and others are willing to not respect, such as using bug/bugself, or lord/master.

So, why must I respect some pronouns and not others?

You don't have to. The consequences for your antisocial behavior rest solely on you.

So, why is refusing to use 'bugself' not antisocial?

 

[TomC]

Because the vast majority of informed people recognize that polite pronoun usage has nothing to do with sex.

Do they? How have you arrived at this conclusion?

That's easy. It's a combination of rational thought supported by an overwhelming pile of observations.

We cis-folks swim in a sea of gender affirmations. From clothing to restrooms, it's all designed around us. You and I can wear whatever makes us comfortable. We can walk up to a door, and with no more information than "men" written on it know it's intended for us. We take all this utterly for granted.
Language is similar. Our gender identity is affirmed on a regular basis by stuff like pronouns. Irrational as it might be, gendered pronouns are deeply ingrained in our experience. They affirm "You're OK. You're a normal human being." For trans folks, it's not like that. Being misgendered is a reminder "You're not OK. There's something deeply wrong with you". It's a bit like getting pricked with a pin. Nowhere near fatal, but unpleasant. Informed people recognize all this. And they recognize that everybody's life will be better if nobody goes around pricking other people with pins without reason. And there is no reason for it, because sex has nothing to do with much of anything nowadays.

Things didn't used to be like that. From legal rights to domestic roles, almost everything was divided by sex. Sex and gender were inextricably conjoined. We've largely left that primitive world behind.
Like babies regularly dying of rubella and white people casually referring to elderly black men as "boy", decent folk have moved on from many of our primitive old norms.
Tom

 

[Bomb#20]

??? There’s little evidence of an epidemic of violence against transsexuals when you actually look at each murder. Killed during robbery; shot sitting in car in Chicago; killed by mentally ill mother; are members of other demographics with high homicide/violence rates.

Your argument is that violence against transsexuals is not as high is irrelevant - the relevant issue is the trend.

Have you ruled out the null hypothesis that the apparent trend is an artifact of an increase in the rate at which trans crime victims are known by those maintaining the statistics to be trans?

 

[TomC]

Have you ruled out the null hypothesis that the apparent trend is an artifact of an increase in the rate at which trans crime victims are known by those maintaining the statistics to be trans?

There're another couple of things to include.

More people are overtly trans.

More trans people feel entitled to be entitled and confrontational. In other words, jerks.

Add all this together and you get an uptick in "crimes against trans people". But that's not the same as an increase in transphobic crimes.
Tom

 

[Bomb#20]

I do not give a <expletive deleted>

I understand that. You accused me of implying you're a woke ideologue, so I let you know it wasn't you I was talking about, and you do not care.

I am actually rather fed up with anti-wokeists, in general. The more I see of them, the more they look like food.

You are a dragon, and one of the things dragons are legendary for is not giving a rat's ass whether they are treating people unjustly.

We actually do have a sense of justice, even though it is a peculiar one.

Are you talking about something like the peculiar sense of justice a dragon has, who long ago stole somebody's gold cup but now Bilbo steals it from him, so he (Smaug) burns down the town where he thinks somebody who helped Bilbo lives?

You have made a number of false baseless accusations against other posters including me, and when I point it out, you show not the slightest interest.

Feel free to take this as an opportunity to clarify.

I was already clear. Feel free to review what you've said about others, this time with an objective eye. You treated some other member unfairly in posts #110, #116, and #118 of this thread, and in all of these posts:

Can We Discuss Sex & Gender / Transgender People?

Agreed. Why is it so important to know what's in people's pants. Does the genitalia of the clerk at Safeway really matter to checking out your groceries? Do you think they're going to push your items passed the scanner with their penis? It must be hell to worry about this so much. I really get...

iidb.org

https://iidb.org/threads/derail-from-good-news-in-the-pronoun-wars-400k-payout-for-professor.26011/#post-1004666

https://iidb.org/threads/derail-from-good-news-in-the-pronoun-wars-400k-payout-for-professor.26011/#post-1005045

https://iidb.org/threads/derail-from-good-news-in-the-pronoun-wars-400k-payout-for-professor.26011/#post-1005146

You made baseless accusations against me in posts #139 and #143. In your current post, the very post in which you feel you need to ask me to clarify, you falsely accused me of spreading fear of trans people. After I'd told you I wasn't talking about you and you quoted that back to me you insinuated that I was talking about you. And you invented out of whole cloth a misrepresentation of what it is I disagree with the woke folks about.

It was because of anti-wokeist rhetoric that that man was afraid of me.

What's your evidence for that? It sounds like something anti-trans rhetoric would cause. Do you know specifically what was said that set him off?

In any event, some people have been known to mistake anti-racism rhetoric for anti-white rhetoric, and become afraid that somebody would be coming for them on account of their skin color. Do you think, to forestall that scenario, we should all refrain from criticizing racism?

I was once surrounded by a gang of youth in the street and beaten, but who was it that told those young men that I was a pervert that was intent on sexually molesting their baby brothers?

I'm very sorry that happened to you. The people who did it were scumbags and so was whoever set them off. I'm guessing, though, that the person who set them off said something more like "Trans people are child molesters" than like "Wokesters are the new Christians".

If you're arguing that when people are being leaned on by a pushy religion they ought to just submit and shouldn't push back, you're not really selling the case. Back when people pointed out that the Catholic Church was ruled by corrupt sellers of indulgences and church offices, and that there was no reason to think the Pope was infallible, and that church doctrine had grown very remote from Jesus' original message, and that having the power to burn unbelievers for heresy doesn't prove one's opinions are correct, those people's protests caused a great deal of mayhem in their society, and brought danger and violence into the lives of a lot of people, and did not solve anything the partisans for Catholicism saw as a problem. Should western civilization on that account have simply made a collective social choice to remain under the thumb of the Church for the foreseeable future?

I have cited empirical evidence for my views. Let me post them again.

Structural connections in the brain in relation to gender identity and sexual orientation - Scientific Reports

Both transgenderism and homosexuality are facets of human biology, believed to derive from different sexual differentiation of the brain. The two phenomena are, however, fundamentally unalike, despite an increased prevalence of homosexuality among transgender populations. Transgenderism is...

www.nature.com

<snip>

It is such a wonderful world, where you do not have to take anything on faith at all.

Why do you keep doing this? What the devil do you see in my posts that could have deluded you into thinking I'm talking about your views when I gripe about pushy woke religious zealots? What, you think what the woke have been demanding everyone believe or at least pretend to believe is that a part of your brain has some particular diffusion anisotropy? There are all sorts of things they pressure people to accept on faith and none of them are brain anisotropy.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

We cis-folks swim in a sea of gender affirmations. From clothing to restrooms, it's all designed around us. You and I can wear whatever makes us comfortable. We can walk up to a door, and with no more information than "men" written on it know it's intended for us. We take all this utterly for granted.

Is it? 1982, Johannesburg. We got lost in the train station and came up on the black side.

 

[TomC]

We cis-folks swim in a sea of gender affirmations. From clothing to restrooms, it's all designed around us. You and I can wear whatever makes us comfortable. We can walk up to a door, and with no more information than "men" written on it know it's intended for us. We take all this utterly for granted.

Is it? 1982, Johannesburg. We got lost in the train station and came up on the black side.

Um...
Wut?
Tom

 

[Metaphor]

Because the vast majority of informed people recognize that polite pronoun usage has nothing to do with sex.

Do they? How have you arrived at this conclusion?

That's easy. It's a combination of rational thought supported by an overwhelming pile of observations.

We cis-folks swim in a sea of gender affirmations. From clothing to restrooms, it's all designed around us. You and I can wear whatever makes us comfortable. We can walk up to a door, and with no more information than "men" written on it know it's intended for us. We take all this utterly for granted.
Language is similar. Our gender identity is affirmed on a regular basis by stuff like pronouns. Irrational as it might be, gendered pronouns are deeply ingrained in our experience. They affirm "You're OK. You're a normal human being." For trans folks, it's not like that. Being misgendered is a reminder "You're not OK. There's something deeply wrong with you". It's a bit like getting pricked with a pin. Nowhere near fatal, but unpleasant. Informed people recognize all this. And they recognize that everybody's life will be better if nobody goes around pricking other people with pins without reason. And there is no reason for it, because sex has nothing to do with much of anything nowadays.

Things didn't used to be like that. From legal rights to domestic roles, almost everything was divided by sex. Sex and gender were inextricably conjoined. We've largely left that primitive world behind.
Like babies regularly dying of rubella and white people casually referring to elderly black men as "boy", decent folk have moved on from many of our primitive old norms.
Tom

I'm sorry, but the above does not answer the question at all. How do you know what the 'majority' of 'informed people' recognise? How did you come to the conclusion they were a majority? How did you come to the conclusion they were 'informed'? Who did you poll, and when? What was your sample size?

 

[SigmatheZeta]

So @Bomb#20, it would be really useful at this point, for establishing good faith, to just acknowledge, whether or not you knew already, "Sigma, it is indeed obvious that people are born transgender, and affirmation is clearly necessary for transgender people's health, especially that of transgender youth." Again, I do not care a button whether you already knew or not. I just need us to clear that communication hurdle, so I can know if it is okay to stop reposting those links.

It's not clear why you posted them in the first place; but I guess I need to congratulate you on having the sense not to post them a third time and become a living example of "What I tell you three times is true." But as far as I can see they have no bearing on any dispute I'm having with you; you seem to have invented out of whole cloth some position for me that you keep arguing against even though I've given you no reason to think whatever position you're fighting against is mine.

Do feel free to clarify your position. I increasingly find anti-wokeists to be the most abysmally useless pieces of shit that I have ever met on the Internet, though, and the more I interact with them, the more I want to punch them in the eye.

Feel free to explain what your actual positions are.

I have been attempting to explain what my own positions are.

Further, it's not clear why you imagine I would need to agree with your above assertion in order to "establish good faith". As far as I can see you haven't offered any evidence for it. There were no babies in the studies you posted. How the heck do you figure anisotropy in diffusion in the brains observed in teenagers and adults says anything one way or the other about whether the anisotropy arose before they were born or during childhood?

In other words, you ask us to speculate that the brain has a degree of plasticity that it does not, as far as anyone knows, have. I have adequate knowledge of neuroscience that it behooves me to regard such speculation to be dubious and silly. Unless current conclusions regarding the likely bounds of neural plasticity were to have changed, I suspect that you would engage in outright magical thinking rather than the simpler acknowledgement that a person's gender identity is set at least by childhood. Furthermore, speculation otherwise flies in the face of the current advice of the American Academy of Pediatrics. If you want to argue against some of the most highly educated doctors in the world, then be my guest. They do not take commands from me.

If you are attempting to deny that gender identity is fixed by the time it is recognizable, then you might as well be asserting that being transgender is just a "thought in my head" contrary to the evidence that I have offered.

I have furnished empirical evidence that my gender is something that I am stuck with. I have furnished you with the highly authoritative position statement of some of the most educated pediatric experts in the entire country.

For me to be clear on what your position is, I need you to simply acknowledge that, based on the scientific knowledge that is currently available to us, my gender identity is most likely fixed, and as a consequence, it is sensible, practical, and reasonable for me to pursue the social affirmation of my gender identity, which is supported by a broad scientific consensus.

The year-long review screened more than 4,000 studies and identified 56 that assessed whether gender transition improves the mental well-being of transgender individuals. The analysis concluded that 93 percent of the studies found positive effects from gender transition, indicating “a robust international consensus in the peer-reviewed literature that gender transition, including medical treatments such as hormone therapy and surgeries, improves the overall well-being of transgender individuals.”​

Analysis finds strong consensus on effectiveness of gender transition treatment | Cornell Chronicle

A new data analysis has found strong consensus that undergoing gender transition can improve transgender well-being.

news.cornell.edu

You'd have to measure it in newborns to find that out.

While the research on transgender people is still in the starting stages by comparison, sexual orientation, at least, has been traced to the last weeks of gestation. The American Academy of Pediatrics has been confident enough, regarding transgender children most likely having a fixed gender identity, to recommend "social transition" even for young children. I believe that one of the foremost pediatric institutions in the world is an adequate scientific authority for practical decision-making.

For that matter, why do you care so much?

Because there is no realistic alternative to seeking gender-affirming care and asking for the support of our communities in seeking affirmation in our gender identity. For us to do otherwise is untenable, and to demand otherwise of us is deranged.

What's so bloody important about the moment of birth that it would make a difference whether transgendered are born that way? You know all humans are preemies, right? We were naturally selected to be born early so our massively oversized brains won't kill our mothers on the way out. Our brains keep developing along a preprogrammed schedule for years after we're born, same as the rest of our anatomy. So if it turns out transgenderism isn't determined until some brain cells grow this way instead of that way at the age of two, what's the big deal? Why is that any more important than if it happens 8 months after conception so most transgendered people are born that way but not the ones who pop out after 7 months? Why should that affect anybody's decisions?

If what you keep posting links to prove is that people are transgendered because of brain anatomy, who do you think you're talking to, a Christian? You think I think it's caused by having a sinful immortal soul or something? I'm an atheist! Of course it's caused by brain anatomy! I don't need a study to tell me that. What else besides brain anatomy could cause it?

I am therefore physically different from a cis-gender person. To treat me as if I were the same as a cis-gender person would therefore be demented. Someone that demands that I be given the same pronoun as a cisgender person is simply behaving like a lunatic for no reason.

Now, when you spread around rhetoric that could stir up fear against transgender people, you make their situation not only awkward but dangerous. Fear makes people dangerous, whether you mean for it to or not. When people are afraid of me, they become dangerous to me.

Why do you keep laying that at my door? What the hell rhetoric am I spreading that you think makes people afraid of you?

The use of terms like "woke religion" is inflammatory. Claiming that people are trying to "force a religion" on you is inflammatory. The fact that you and others around you consistently use that rhetoric, surrounding transgender issues, is eventually going to lead to serious violence. Someone is going to get hurt.

The anti-wokeists have basically just created a hate group for the sake of creating a hate group, and as a consequence, violence against transgender people has been getting worse every year for the last few years.

I say "somebody is going to get hurt," but somebody has already gotten hurt. People are dead because of the violence against transgender people that the anti-wokeists have already stirred up, and it is going to get worse.

Where the bejesus have I posted anything critical of transgendered people?

For the sake of clearing up communication, then, it would be easier if you just acknowledged that you understand the contents of those articles, and I can stop reposting them. Are you aware of the scientific evidence that transgender people are biologically different from cis-gender people and not realistically able to change this difference? Furthermore, are you aware that there is a scientific consensus that gender-affirming care actually works to help improve transgender people's health?

You can just say "yes" and "yes," and, once we have established that, you can clarify what your views actually are. As a transgender person, I have a practical need to clear that communication hurdle.

You think pointing out that people who don't give a rat's ass about the First Amendment tend to be a problem for the rest of us is somehow by magic instilling fear of everybody with gender dysphoria? Is there anything else I say that causes people to be afraid of you? Should I keep my mouth shut about nuclear power being the safe and sane way to stop global warming in case somebody takes that as incitement to beat up trans people?

When I have a coworker threatening me just because I use my own freedom of speech to assert my gender identity when I disagree with his insinuations to the contrary, then that constitutes someone attempting to use physical violence to limit my own freedom of speech.

My views on using preferred pronouns around transgender people is that you should no more need a law for it than you should need a law to know that it's inappropriate to talk about your marital problems around your boss. Not all of us that say "What the fuck is wrong with you?" want to create a new law, but just because there shouldn't necessarily be a law doesn't mean you have to be a fucking douche-flute toward other human beings. There are many things you shouldn't do that also shouldn't necessarily be a crime, but just because it shouldn't necessarily be a crime doesn't mean you aren't being a fucking asshole if you do it.

If we say that misgendering people should not be considered to represent acceptable social decorum, then that is not taking away your legal rights at all. You do not have a right for people to respect you, and if you behave like an uneducated savage, then people are not going to respect you.

What is amazing is how many people think that I am saying they deserve to be treated as criminals just because I tell them "Please at least try to get my pronouns right, you useless fucking douche-flute, because I have been telling you this every fucking day for months. You wonder why I do not like you. The reason why I do not like you is that you are a dense twat."

I am not really that rude to people in actual practice, but these are the thoughts, toward people, that I politely keep to myself, most of the time, because voicing those thoughts is also not acceptable workplace decorum. I can say the same shit in more politically correct, workplace-friendly ways, but just because I am not saying it does not mean that I am not thinking it.

So no, I am not saying there should necessarily be a law to tell you that there is a socially acceptable way to talk to and about transgender people. You should not need one. You should want people around you to believe that you have an above-average IQ. You should want people around you to not be embarrassed of you.

If you already understand this, then fine. It would be a good thing if you did. I would not see that as a concession by you, but I would see that as only affirmation that you choose to be a respectful person. I do not know if you do not tell me. Many anti-wokeists do not want to see eye-to-eye with me that far.

Trans people does not equal woke people. If we mustn't criticize stupid religions, then what's the point of having a forum for infidels?

Anti-wokeism comes across to me as more like a religious cult, to be honest.

I am not some cult that is trying to oppress you,

Nobody said you were. This isn't about you. This is about Shawnee State and its administrators' apparent preference for an ideological monoculture.

If you are taking the position that employers should not have a right to set standards of decorum, then I can recognize that as a point-of-view that you might actually have.

I know that that point-of-view would not fly with my boss. I know that that point-of-view would not fly with human resources at my place-of-work. If I got fired for testing that theory, then I would not get more sympathy than a pat on the head. I am sure that nobody would doubt that I believed that I was in the right.

It just wouldn't get me far.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

We cis-folks swim in a sea of gender affirmations. From clothing to restrooms, it's all designed around us. You and I can wear whatever makes us comfortable. We can walk up to a door, and with no more information than "men" written on it know it's intended for us. We take all this utterly for granted.

Is it? 1982, Johannesburg. We got lost in the train station and came up on the black side.

Um...
Wut?
Tom

Johannesburg, South Africa. Back in the Apartheid era.

We arrived by train and somewhere took a wrong turn (we didn't know the train station was segregated in the first place and thus easily could have missed some sort of decision point) and were wandering around the black side of the station, trying to figure out how we were supposed to get out.

 

[SigmatheZeta]

I do not give a <expletive deleted>

I understand that. You accused me of implying you're a woke ideologue, so I let you know it wasn't you I was talking about, and you do not care.

I am actually rather fed up with anti-wokeists, in general. The more I see of them, the more they look like food.

You are a dragon, and one of the things dragons are legendary for is not giving a rat's ass whether they are treating people unjustly.

We actually do have a sense of justice, even though it is a peculiar one.

Are you talking about something like the peculiar sense of justice a dragon has, who long ago stole somebody's gold cup but now Bilbo steals it from him, so he (Smaug) burns down the town where he thinks somebody who helped Bilbo lives?

Try just the visualization without the assumptions. It would really improve our communication. It helps if you can imagine me as somebody that has a face. You can remember my face better if it is a funny and unique one. When you talk to me, hold the face in your head. It doesn't have to be a dragon. It could be anything. Just a visual avatar that, in your head, represents Sigma.

You will find that you listen better, and you will know better how to react.

Stop listening for what a human being would say or think, and listen for what Sigma says and thinks. You have never met a self-confessed dragon before, so when she talks, you have to work a little bit harder to figure out what she thinks and why she thinks it. Once you have figured her out, though, she is really not complicated.

You have made a number of false baseless accusations against other posters including me, and when I point it out, you show not the slightest interest.

Feel free to take this as an opportunity to clarify.

I was already clear. Feel free to review what you've said about others, this time with an objective eye. You treated some other member unfairly in posts #110, #116, and #118 of this thread, and in all of these posts:

Can We Discuss Sex & Gender / Transgender People?

Agreed. Why is it so important to know what's in people's pants. Does the genitalia of the clerk at Safeway really matter to checking out your groceries? Do you think they're going to push your items passed the scanner with their penis? It must be hell to worry about this so much. I really get...

iidb.org

https://iidb.org/threads/derail-from-good-news-in-the-pronoun-wars-400k-payout-for-professor.26011/#post-1004666

https://iidb.org/threads/derail-from-good-news-in-the-pronoun-wars-400k-payout-for-professor.26011/#post-1005045

https://iidb.org/threads/derail-from-good-news-in-the-pronoun-wars-400k-payout-for-professor.26011/#post-1005146

You made baseless accusations against me in posts #139 and #143. In your current post, the very post in which you feel you need to ask me to clarify, you falsely accused me of spreading fear of trans people. After I'd told you I wasn't talking about you and you quoted that back to me you insinuated that I was talking about you. And you invented out of whole cloth a misrepresentation of what it is I disagree with the woke folks about.

There is a strong association between anti-wokism and transphobia. Now, if you want to, you can confirm that you already agreed with the information in those articles (I do not care if your opinions are really nuanced, but I just need to know that you basically understand the importance of that research), and we can clear up a major communication hurdle.

It was because of anti-wokeist rhetoric that that man was afraid of me.

What's your evidence for that? It sounds like something anti-trans rhetoric would cause. Do you know specifically what was said that set him off?

In any event, some people have been known to mistake anti-racism rhetoric for anti-white rhetoric, and become afraid that somebody would be coming for them on account of their skin color. Do you think, to forestall that scenario, we should all refrain from criticizing racism?

Anti-wokism tends to be associated with transphobia.

I was once surrounded by a gang of youth in the street and beaten, but who was it that told those young men that I was a pervert that was intent on sexually molesting their baby brothers?

I'm very sorry that happened to you. The people who did it were scumbags and so was whoever set them off. I'm guessing, though, that the person who set them off said something more like "Trans people are child molesters" than like "Wokesters are the new Christians".

The followers of DeSantis are now using the term "groomer" instead of "child molester," but it has the same meaning. Anti-wokeism really has nothing to do with being anti-woke, in actual practice, but it seems to be code for transphobic sentiments.

I was never particularly sure about the "woke" strategy, myself. I am very well aware of social injustice, and I cannot help but to be. Injustice is a very real, everyday problem for me. However, I ended up developing a strategy that I think works better.

Anarchy cannot really be pursued by creating chaos because chaos is almost invariably used as an excuse for imposing tyranny. People are only tempted to truckle to a tyrant when they are afraid, angry, and helpless, and these feelings tend to be a consequence of a disordered society. Therefore, we can only succeed at defeating tyranny by the willing pursuit of order.

If you're arguing that when people are being leaned on by a pushy religion they ought to just submit and shouldn't push back, you're not really selling the case. Back when people pointed out that the Catholic Church was ruled by corrupt sellers of indulgences and church offices, and that there was no reason to think the Pope was infallible, and that church doctrine had grown very remote from Jesus' original message, and that having the power to burn unbelievers for heresy doesn't prove one's opinions are correct, those people's protests caused a great deal of mayhem in their society, and brought danger and violence into the lives of a lot of people, and did not solve anything the partisans for Catholicism saw as a problem. Should western civilization on that account have simply made a collective social choice to remain under the thumb of the Church for the foreseeable future?

I have cited empirical evidence for my views. Let me post them again.

Structural connections in the brain in relation to gender identity and sexual orientation - Scientific Reports

Both transgenderism and homosexuality are facets of human biology, believed to derive from different sexual differentiation of the brain. The two phenomena are, however, fundamentally unalike, despite an increased prevalence of homosexuality among transgender populations. Transgenderism is...

www.nature.com

<snip>

It is such a wonderful world, where you do not have to take anything on faith at all.

Why do you keep doing this? What the devil do you see in my posts that could have deluded you into thinking I'm talking about your views when I gripe about pushy woke religious zealots? What, you think what the woke have been demanding everyone believe or at least pretend to believe is that a part of your brain has some particular diffusion anisotropy? There are all sorts of things they pressure people to accept on faith and none of them are brain anisotropy.

I like to talk about my differences in terms of the squishy bits. This makes me unusual.

In fact, many transgender people find this about me to be appalling, and I do not give a damn.

I am a transgender DRAGON. I am not embarrassed about my biology. I do not mind being put under a microscope. It might make humans feel uncomfortable, but for me, that stuff is exciting and cool.

Let me guess: you have met those transgender people that want to talk about "lived experience," right?

If all you want to say is that continental philosophy is all useless drivel, then just say so.

Many of us transgender people are actually science nerds, and we do not care a rat's ass about continental philosophy.