Trans activists: Trans women should not be required to suppress testosterone to play on women's teams

[Metaphor]

Who are you arguing with? On the first point (that there is a well established advantage due to male physiology) isn't something that I think any of us disagree on. On the second point (a blanket ban on trans persons competing) I think only Metaphor has argued for, and I think it's almost entirely premised on the impact of puberty.

I think it's worth being careful with language here. I have not advocated 'banning' transwomen from competing. I have advocated that biological males compete with biological males only.

So far as I know, you're the only person who has proposed that people who do not go through a male puberty at all, presumably including children that take hormone blockers starting at about 12 and them do HRT and testosterone suppression, should be allowed to compete in female leagues. You seem as if you feel that everyone is arguing with you about that position... but I don't think anyone is, because we don't have any examples to look to for it. I have no opinion for or against that, I don't know of anyone who has done it. Most of the people in this thread have been satisfied with reasonable testosterone limits in place for competition in a female sport, even if that isn't really sufficient to eliminate all of the advantages of a testosterone puberty.

It's true we don't have many examples (or any it seems), but Jarhyn is plain wrong in his premises. Natal males and and natal females are different from before birth, and it begins with a flood of androgens in the womb for males. The competitive advantage that males have does not begin with a male puberty but before they have drawn breath.

Indeed, although I am not a feminist, feminists would also argue that natal males have been treated differently to natal females and have a non-biological social advantage as well.

Jarhyn is also being dishonest about what trans activists want. Trans activists do not want having undergone a male puberty to bar transwomen from competing with women. Trans activists do not want any gatekeeping whatsoever in order for transwomen to compete with women. Trans activists want Andraya Yearwood to compete with girls (which he does) even though he had no medical or hormonal transition at all.

 

[Emily Lake]

It's true we don't have many examples (or any it seems), but Jarhyn is plain wrong in his premises. Natal males and and natal females are different from before birth, and it begins with a flood of androgens in the womb for males. The competitive advantage that males have does not begin with a male puberty but before they have drawn breath.

Indeed, although I am not a feminist, feminists would also argue that natal males have been treated differently to natal females and have a non-biological social advantage as well.

Yes, there are biological differences from the womb... but I don't think that most of those confer any particular physical advantage. The majority of the advantage is very much due to puberty. Prior to puberty, the differences between girls and boys is relatively small. There are still some differences in height, hand size, and foot size, but they're small compared to the differences that emerge as a result of puberty. There's also a difference in pelvic structure that may or may not have an impact on sports. I know it affects gait... but beyond that I just don't know.

Regarding social advantage... there is different conditioning for girls and boys. Not sure what that implies with respect to sports though.

 

[Metaphor]

It's true we don't have many examples (or any it seems), but Jarhyn is plain wrong in his premises. Natal males and and natal females are different from before birth, and it begins with a flood of androgens in the womb for males. The competitive advantage that males have does not begin with a male puberty but before they have drawn breath.

Indeed, although I am not a feminist, feminists would also argue that natal males have been treated differently to natal females and have a non-biological social advantage as well.

Yes, there are biological differences from the womb... but I don't think that most of those confer any particular physical advantage. The majority of the advantage is very much due to puberty. Prior to puberty, the differences between girls and boys is relatively small. There are still some differences in height, hand size, and foot size, but they're small compared to the differences that emerge as a result of puberty. There's also a difference in pelvic structure that may or may not have an impact on sports. I know it affects gait... but beyond that I just don't know.

Regarding social advantage... there is different conditioning for girls and boys. Not sure what that implies with respect to sports though.

That the differences are smaller pre-puberty doesn't mean they are meaningless. I follow with great interest my nieces and nephews development on height and weight charts, and those separate boys and girls. It probably doesn't make much difference to children's sport, but the differences are there.

Feminists often argue that girls are socialised to be meeker, deferential, more co-operative and less competitive, than boys. Being "more co-operative" might conceivably be an advantage in team sports, being less competitive is not an advantage in any (competitive) sport.

I don't happen to think it makes that much difference even if true, because the biology overshadows it all.

 

[Emily Lake]

That the differences are smaller pre-puberty doesn't mean they are meaningless. I follow with great interest my nieces and nephews development on height and weight charts, and those separate boys and girls. It probably doesn't make much difference to children's sport, but the differences are there.

Feminists often argue that girls are socialised to be meeker, deferential, more co-operative and less competitive, than boys. Being "more co-operative" might conceivably be an advantage in team sports, being less competitive is not an advantage in any (competitive) sport.

I don't happen to think it makes that much difference even if true, because the biology overshadows it all.

I don't disagree with either overall point - both in terms of physical and social differences pre-puberty. I'm just not sure that they make any material difference in terms of sex-segregated sports.

For Jarhyn's argument, if a male child suppresses testosterone throughout all of puberty and undergoes estrogen therapy during that time, I'm not sure that they would have a material advantage in physicality post-puberty when compared to female children who undergo a natural female puberty. And if female child suppresses estrogen and does testosterone therapy through their entire puberty, I'm not sure that they would be at a material disadvantage compared to a male child that undergoes a natural male puberty. There might still be some difference post-puberty, but I don't know how material they would be. At the moment, I'm inclined to thing that the impact of testosterone or estrogen is significantly larger than any inherent difference in physicality that exists prior to that hormonal differentiation. I could be wrong, but it seems like children of both sexes tend to be close to equally competitive prior to puberty.

In terms of the social variances... I dunno. They do exist, but I don't know how great an impact that has on sports. I speculate that females who are drawn to sports are already more competitive and aggressive than the "archetypal" girl. And I would also speculate that transgirls are less competitive and aggressive than the "archetypal" boy. I am not a doctor, but I would guess that those behavioral tendencies are part of what drives a young female to identify as a boy, or a young male to identify as a girl.

Either way, if you could completely replace the impact of testosterone.estrogen during puberty, I don't think the remaining differences would have any real meaningful impact in sports. I just don't have any concrete examples to reference, so it's all hypothetical.

Mostly, I'm just not sure who Jarhyn is actually arguing with on this specific element. Even you don't seem to think that pre-puberty differences would make much difference in sports.

 

[Emily Lake]

In terms of the social differences, I agree that those probably don't make much difference in sports. They make a difference in other areas of life. If a person diverges too far from the "social blueprint" of acceptable variation for the expected behavioral norm... people tend to look askance. I'm sure you can relate to at least some of it as a gay man. I would suspect that you've encountered your fair share of people treating your differently, or even poorly, because you don't conform to the social convention of a "proper man" with respect to your romantic interests. Similar kind of dynamic when it comes to women in general. There's a blueprint of "how a woman is supposed to behave" that includes how aggressive we're expected to be versus how collaborative, how much we're expected to pursue our own selfish interests versus how much we should prioritize the interests of other people, how strongly opinionated we should be, how outspoken we should be, and how much effort we should put into defending our points of view... even how much we should smile and how conciliatory we're expected to be in situations that involve conflict. There's always some margin of error, some subconscious wiggle room... but the expectations are still different than the blueprint for men in general. And when a person (any person, not just women) gets too far outside the lines... it tends to be looked at as "deviant' or "bad", and is viewed as a negative characteristic.

This wouldn't necessarily be a problem... except that those blueprints create constraints when it comes to career progress and leadership positions, including politics. The blueprint for the archetype of "woman" is a set of characteristics that don't lend themselves to executive and leadership roles. But when a woman displays the characteristics that do lend themselves to leadership, they are subconsciously viewed as being too far outside the lines of the blueprint for "woman" which prompts a negative response.

 

[Metaphor]

For Jarhyn's argument, if a male child suppresses testosterone throughout all of puberty and undergoes estrogen therapy during that time, I'm not sure that they would have a material advantage in physicality post-puberty when compared to female children who undergo a natural female puberty.

The burden is on Jarhyn to prove it. He wants to shift the burden of proof to others.

And if female child suppresses estrogen and does testosterone therapy through their entire puberty, I'm not sure that they would be at a material disadvantage compared to a male child that undergoes a natural male puberty. There might still be some difference post-puberty, but I don't know how material they would be. At the moment, I'm inclined to thing that the impact of testosterone or estrogen is significantly larger than any inherent difference in physicality that exists prior to that hormonal differentiation. I could be wrong, but it seems like children of both sexes tend to be close to equally competitive prior to puberty.

Are they, though? I don't follow adult sports, much less children, but even my 5 year old niece's soccer team is sex-segregated.

In terms of the social variances... I dunno. They do exist, but I don't know how great an impact that has on sports. I speculate that females who are drawn to sports are already more competitive and aggressive than the "archetypal" girl. And I would also speculate that transgirls are less competitive and aggressive than the "archetypal" boy. I am not a doctor, but I would guess that those behavioral tendencies are part of what drives a young female to identify as a boy, or a young male to identify as a girl.

If a desire or preference for the stereotypes of the opposite sex is what drives gender dysphoria, then society ought not further compound its error and mutilate the bodies of the children that they've bullied into dysphoria.

Mostly, I'm just not sure who Jarhyn is actually arguing with on this specific element. Even you don't seem to think that pre-puberty differences would make much difference in sports.

I'm agnostic on it. I know boys and girls were separated for sports events in primary school when I was attending. I also know that 5 and 6 year olds don't understand the rules of soccer and basically run up and down the field and the goals don't have goalies and the teams don't even have an assigned goal.

 

[Jarhyn]

In terms of the social differences, I agree that those probably don't make much difference in sports. They make a difference in other areas of life. If a person diverges too far from the "social blueprint" of acceptable variation for the expected behavioral norm... people tend to look askance. I'm sure you can relate to at least some of it as a gay man. I would suspect that you've encountered your fair share of people treating your differently, or even poorly, because you don't conform to the social convention of a "proper man" with respect to your romantic interests. Similar kind of dynamic when it comes to women in general. There's a blueprint of "how a woman is supposed to behave" that includes how aggressive we're expected to be versus how collaborative, how much we're expected to pursue our own selfish interests versus how much we should prioritize the interests of other people, how strongly opinionated we should be, how outspoken we should be, and how much effort we should put into defending our points of view... even how much we should smile and how conciliatory we're expected to be in situations that involve conflict. There's always some margin of error, some subconscious wiggle room... but the expectations are still different than the blueprint for men in general. And when a person (any person, not just women) gets too far outside the lines... it tends to be looked at as "deviant' or "bad", and is viewed as a negative characteristic.

This wouldn't necessarily be a problem... except that those blueprints create constraints when it comes to career progress and leadership positions, including politics. The blueprint for the archetype of "woman" is a set of characteristics that don't lend themselves to executive and leadership roles. But when a woman displays the characteristics that do lend themselves to leadership, they are subconsciously viewed as being too far outside the lines of the blueprint for "woman" which prompts a negative response.

The issue is that Metaphor is hung up on not wanting to accept trans people. I have been watching them for years, and they consistently try to find any way they can to reject making even the slightest bit of progress. They keep digging, searching, trying to justify discussing people from the perspective of private information (what is in their pants), rather than the only meaningful parts they will ever be exposed to. They want to justify a right to publicly out people; they don't understand how or why this is wrong.

They have repeatedly gone so far as to claim that they would absolutely be able to tell the difference. That there is no such thing as getting past Metaphor's keen psychic penis sense.

Now, metaphor consistently shifts burdens of proof so it doesn't surprise me. At any rate, they claim a meaningful differentiation, they gave a burden to uphold this differentiation.

The null hypothesis is on my side here, as it is the default position (that there is no meaningful differentiation without a demonstration of the nature of an effect. Two populations are the same unless you can prove to a statistically significant degree a population difference, and then you still must establish that difference as meaningful (that the effect is large enough to actually care(


With testosterone and it's lifetime effects, we have that evidence for non-suppressed people.

Don't let his bullshit attempts to turn the burden of proof around. I mean, he might as well be claiming that black people are inferior because "it hasn't been proven they are not".

He just wants to segregate by "sex" and claim that is meaningful, even though he has not actually established a meaningful clear edge that doesn't run afoul of a good deal of edge cases.

It's just more "sex essentialism", more sexism.

 

[Metaphor]

The issue is that Metaphor is hung up on not wanting to accept trans people. I have been watching them for years,

After I accidentally misgendered Jarhyn a few months ago, I got a warning from talkfreethought staff.

I assume now that Jarhyn has deliberately misgendered me, he will receive a similar warning.

and they consistently try to find any way they can to reject making even the slightest bit of progress. They keep digging, searching, trying to justify discussing people from the perspective of private information (what is in their pants), rather than the only meaningful parts they will ever be exposed to. They want to justify a right to publicly out people; they don't understand how or why this is wrong.

No. I do not want the State to enable the erasure of facts, nor do I think that sex-segregated spaces were gender-segregated spaces all along, because they were not.

They have repeatedly gone so far as to claim that they would absolutely be able to tell the difference. That there is no such thing as getting past Metaphor's keen psychic penis sense.

"Tell the difference"? What are you talking about? The difference between transwomen and women? Or between transmen and men? That you believe you can't tell the difference is your own problem, not mine.

But what's the point of this accusation? Are you suggesting that if somebody cannot tell apart all transmen from men without looking at the transman's genitals, that sex-segregated spaces should be abolished?

Now, metaphor consistently shifts burdens of proof so it doesn't surprise me. At any rate, they claim a meaningful differentiation, they gave a burden to uphold this differentiation.

I don't know what this means. That transmen and cisgendered men are different is true by definition.

The null hypothesis is on my side here, as it is the default position (that there is no meaningful differentiation without a demonstration of the nature of an effect. Two populations are the same unless you can prove to a statistically significant degree a population difference, and then you still must establish that difference as meaningful (that the effect is large enough to actually care(

I don't really understand this gobbledygook, but I think Jarhyn means to say 'transmen and men are the same until you prove a difference', which is false by definition.

With testosterone and it's lifetime effects, we have that evidence for non-suppressed people.

Don't let his bullshit attempts to turn the burden of proof around. I mean, he might as well be claiming that black people are inferior because "it hasn't been proven they are not".

He just wants to segregate by "sex" and claim that is meaningful, even though he has not actually established a meaningful clear edge that doesn't run afoul of a good deal of edge cases.

It's just more "sex essentialism", more sexism.

It is trans activists like yourself that are the most vile purveyors of sex and gender stereotypes.

Why did you switch your pronoun usage here? Or did you do it unconsciously?

 

[Jarhyn]

After I accidentally misgendered Jarhyn a few months ago, I got a warning from talkfreethought staff.

I assume now that Jarhyn has deliberately misgendered me, he will receive a similar warning.



No. I do not want the State to enable the erasure of facts, nor do I think that sex-segregated spaces were gender-segregated spaces all along, because they were not.

They have repeatedly gone so far as to claim that they would absolutely be able to tell the difference. That there is no such thing as getting past Metaphor's keen psychic penis sense.

"Tell the difference"? What are you talking about? The difference between transwomen and women? Or between transmen and men? That you believe you can't tell the difference is your own problem, not mine.

But what's the point of this accusation? Are you suggesting that if somebody cannot tell apart all transmen from men without looking at the transman's genitals, that sex-segregated spaces should be abolished?

Now, metaphor consistently shifts burdens of proof so it doesn't surprise me. At any rate, they claim a meaningful differentiation, they gave a burden to uphold this differentiation.

I don't know what this means. That transmen and cisgendered men are different is true by definition.

The null hypothesis is on my side here, as it is the default position (that there is no meaningful differentiation without a demonstration of the nature of an effect. Two populations are the same unless you can prove to a statistically significant degree a population difference, and then you still must establish that difference as meaningful (that the effect is large enough to actually care(

I don't really understand this gobbledygook, but I think Jarhyn means to say 'transmen and men are the same until you prove a difference', which is false by definition.

With testosterone and it's lifetime effects, we have that evidence for non-suppressed people.

Don't let his bullshit attempts to turn the burden of proof around. I mean, he might as well be claiming that black people are inferior because "it hasn't been proven they are not".

He just wants to segregate by "sex" and claim that is meaningful, even though he has not actually established a meaningful clear edge that doesn't run afoul of a good deal of edge cases.

It's just more "sex essentialism", more sexism.

It is trans activists like yourself that are the most vile purveyors of sex and gender stereotypes.

Why did you switch your pronoun usage here? Or did you do it unconsciously?

Ah, so not being specific about your gender is misgendering you, now. Now, I am even more tempted to not be specific about your gender.

But I mean really? Complaining that I didn't gender you immediately enough?

At any rate my claim is that *you don't have any right to make any determination about a person's rights to be in a place on the basis of things you do not know and have no right to be privy to.

You talk a big game about how people are "different", but you fail to establish any meaningfulness behind those differences.

One dog may be a lab and another a retriever, but it's up to you to establish that these are meaningfully different in determining "who's a good boy?" You need to establish a dimension which we agree is meaningful, among a population that we both consider to need variance discovered, and variance along that dimension that is also meaningful, for you to have anything approaching a valid point. You repeatedly do not do that. Hence no valid point.

 

[Metaphor]

Ah, so not being specific about your gender is misgendering you, now. Now, I am even more tempted to not be specific about your gender.

Incorrect. You have previously stated that you know I am a he, but in that post you specifically chose to ignore that and use 'they'. I thought you specifically adhere to using somebody's 'preferred' pronouns, no?

But I mean really? Complaining that I didn't gender you immediately enough?

You deliberately misgendered me, according to your own rules. You know I am not a they and you know my sex (or my gender, if you prefer). There wasn't some ambiguity you can appeal to. You misgendered me because you thought it would get a rise out of me. If I did that, you'd call it transphobic.

At any rate my claim is that *you don't have any right to make any determination about a person's rights to be in a place on the basis of things you do not know and have no right to be privy to.

I didn't invent sex-segregated spaces, honey. All I've ever argued is that if you have a sex-segregated space, don't pretend sex and gender is the same thing and instead call it a gender-segregated space.

You talk a big game about how people are "different", but you fail to establish any meaningfulness behind those differences.

One dog may be a lab and another a retriever, but it's up to you to establish that these are meaningfully different in determining "who's a good boy?" You need to establish a dimension which we agree is meaningful, among a population that we both consider to need variance discovered, and variance along that dimension that is also meaningful, for you to have anything approaching a valid point. You repeatedly do not do that. Hence no valid point.

I didn't invent sex-segregated spaces, honey.

 

[Jarhyn]

Incorrect. You have previously stated that you know I am a he, but in that post you specifically chose to ignore that and use 'they'. I thought you specifically adhere to using somebody's 'preferred' pronouns, no?



You deliberately misgendered me, according to your own rules. You know I am not a they and you know my sex (or my gender, if you prefer). There wasn't some ambiguity you can appeal to. You misgendered me because you thought it would get a rise out of me. If I did that, you'd call it transphobic.

You have a right to not be called something you are not. You have no right to be necessarily called in every calling something you are. Would you rather I use "it" when I do not wish, for the sale of sentence construction, to specifically gender you?

I have a right to use agnostic language. You have no right to use insulting language. I am under no obligation to gender you in any given utterance, only the obligations n to not intentionally misgender you.

At any rate my claim is that *you don't have any right to make any determination about a person's rights to be in a place on the basis of things you do not know and have no right to be privy to.

I didn't invent sex-segregated spaces, honey. All I've ever argued is that if you have a sex-segregated space...

The point is that you keep implicitly validating, accepting, approving of "sex" segregation of spaces in your insurance people use "sex" as the segregation mechanic.

You talk a big game about how people are "different", but you fail to establish any meaningfulness behind those differences.

One dog may be a lab and another a retriever, but it's up to you to establish that these are meaningfully different in determining "who's a good boy?" You need to establish a dimension which we agree is meaningful, among a population that we both consider to need variance discovered, and variance along that dimension that is also meaningful, for you to have anything approaching a valid point. You repeatedly do not do that. Hence no valid point.

I didn't invent sex-segregated spaces, honey.

No, you just support them every chance you get, without suitably defining sex in a way that actually accounts for edge cases (hint: you can't because biology is too messy for that).

At any rate, you have jumped the shark. It is GOOD to know that I ruffle your feathers so much that you are trying to report me over such imagined offenses as not immediately and unambiguously referring to you as a man, granted I have my doubts at times as to how much you satisfy my mental concept of "man", but unlike you, I don't think it is my place to make that judgement.

Good luck in your future endeavors, but for me, I'm putting you and your ridiculous bullshit on ignore. From now on you will forevermore be "that crybaby who I blocked because they tried to report me for not calling them 'he' early enough in a post one time."

 

[Metaphor]

At any rate, you have jumped the shark. It is GOOD to know that I ruffle your feathers so much that you are trying to report me over such imagined offenses as not immediately and unambiguously referring to you as a man, granted I have my doubts at times as to how much you satisfy my mental concept of "man", but unlike you, I don't think it is my place to make that judgement.

Good luck in your future endeavors, but for me, I'm putting you and your ridiculous bullshit on ignore. From now on you will forevermore be "that crybaby who I blocked because they tried to report me for not calling them 'he' early enough in a post one time."

I didn't try and report you, honey. I called you out. There's a difference. If I'm going to be bound by rules (even if I don't agree with the rules), the very least modicum of fairness requires that others be bound by them also.

Oh, and darling: watch my heart break that you've put me on ignore.

 

[skepticalbip]

At any rate, you have jumped the shark. It is GOOD to know that I ruffle your feathers so much that you are trying to report me over such imagined offenses as not immediately and unambiguously referring to you as a man, granted I have my doubts at times as to how much you satisfy my mental concept of "man", but unlike you, I don't think it is my place to make that judgement.

Good luck in your future endeavors, but for me, I'm putting you and your ridiculous bullshit on ignore. From now on you will forevermore be "that crybaby who I blocked because they tried to report me for not calling them 'he' early enough in a post one time."

I didn't try and report you, honey. I called you out. There's a difference. If I'm going to be bound by rules (even if I don't agree with the rules), the very least modicum of fairness requires that others be bound by them also.

Oh, and darling: watch my heart break that you've put me on ignore.

I've never quiet understood the ignore function. Is it for people who get buthurt to be reminded that there is someone who disagrees with them?

 

[DrZoidberg]

I think Jarhyn has a very close connection to someone trans. I may be the only actual 'transexual' person who has participated in this thread.

The queer crowd is my crowd. I have known many transexuals in my life. I have a transman friend undergoing transition right now. I know his entire group of TS friends. They're like a little tribe that go to parties together. I know all of them, although only this one guy to the level where he tells me about his feelings about the transition. I also have a close transwoman friend in Stockholm who underwent transition 15 years ago. I've known her the entire time, and she's given me her longer perspective.

My views on gender are to a large degree based on what the transitioning transexuals I have known tell me. I used to be the old standard liberal where gender differences are down to patriarchal opression and mostly down to how we were raised. Now, not so much.

They undergo radical personality changes. Stuff they thought were cool, they're no longer excited about. As men they loved extreme sports and taking risks. As women they're cautious and more anxious. Or the reverse. As a woman she was easily offended and extremely woke. Now as a man it's more "bah, get over yourself".

That said. I do not know any trans athletes. I do on the other hand know plenty of athletes. I have always been very sporty. And I do know sporty people's general attitude to steroids = very liberal.

edit: I almost forgot, I, for a very short time, dated a transman. Yes, a man with a vagina. It didn't work out. Perhaps it was a personality thing. Perhaps it was just too weird and confusing to me. Who knows? Either way, I lost interest pretty fast. It was fun going to the gym together and lifting weights as if with just a friend, but it wasn't.

I've also considered having sex with transexual women, more than once, (women with penises). But whenever the flirting starts getting interesting I can't shake the feeling that it's a man. I'm not gay, so the whole thing falls apart. I haven't gotten further than just kissing. I like the idea of dating a transexual. In my erotic fantasies it works out just fine. But for whatever reason there's a barrier to making it a reality.

I'm supremely relaxed about my sexuality. I have very little hangups. Which is why I feel so at home in the queer community.

 

[Emily Lake]

You have a right to not be called something you are not.

I feel where you're coming from, but I don't think this is reasonable. I mean, I get the strong desire to not be called something that you're not... but on the other hand, I'm not a girl and I don't want to be called a girl, I'm not a female dog and I don't want to be called a bitch, I'm not a donkey and I don't want to be called an ass, I'm not a walking vagina and I don't want to be called a cunt, the list goes on and on.

I think we all have the right to request that we be addressed in a way that we prefer, but I don't think it confers an obligation on anyone to do so. It's courtesy and it's nice to do.

 

[Emily Lake]

I've never quiet understood the ignore function. Is it for people who get buthurt to be reminded that there is someone who disagrees with them?

I don't use it often. When I do, it tends to fall into two categories:
1) People who post random substanceless and unrelated stuff that clogs up the discussion and just isn't worth reading
2) People who are good at pushing my buttons and I am struggling with the self-control necessary to stay civil

Others might have different uses

 

[Jarhyn]

I've never quiet understood the ignore function. Is it for people who get buthurt to be reminded that there is someone who disagrees with them?

I don't use it often. When I do, it tends to fall into two categories:
1) People who post random substanceless and unrelated stuff that clogs up the discussion and just isn't worth reading
2) People who are good at pushing my buttons and I am struggling with the self-control necessary to stay civil

Others might have different uses

My use is generally reserved for people who clearly have demonstrated that they have no interest in rational discussion or letting evidence or principle impact their views.

 

[Jarhyn]

You have a right to not be called something you are not.

I feel where you're coming from, but I don't think this is reasonable. I mean, I get the strong desire to not be called something that you're not... but on the other hand, I'm not a girl and I don't want to be called a girl, I'm not a female dog and I don't want to be called a bitch, I'm not a donkey and I don't want to be called an ass, I'm not a walking vagina and I don't want to be called a cunt, the list goes on and on.

I think we all have the right to request that we be addressed in a way that we prefer, but I don't think it confers an obligation on anyone to do so. It's courtesy and it's nice to do.

Reread the text.

"You have a right to NOT be called something you ARE NOT." You have a right to not be called a "girl" if a "girl" is not something you are; then the second half: you do not have a right to be called a woman, even if you are one.

I could call you a "person", or "someone I know from an internet forum, or all manner of things that are appropriate without uttering "woman", and without an obligation to.

You may have me confused with Metaphor, who apparently insists that I have some nonsensical obligation to use their pronouns of choice rather than agnostic pronouns.

And when we are discussing this "right" I should be clear that it is within the context of these forums.

In the public, legal sphere, that right is more a social-symmetrical obligation (or, you consent to people calling things you do not believe you are, if you call other people things that they are not; though, if you call someone something that they are not, and they call you a fucking asshole, I'm pretty sure they would be spot on.)

 

[Emily Lake]

You have a right to not be called something you are not.

I feel where you're coming from, but I don't think this is reasonable. I mean, I get the strong desire to not be called something that you're not... but on the other hand, I'm not a girl and I don't want to be called a girl, I'm not a female dog and I don't want to be called a bitch, I'm not a donkey and I don't want to be called an ass, I'm not a walking vagina and I don't want to be called a cunt, the list goes on and on.

I think we all have the right to request that we be addressed in a way that we prefer, but I don't think it confers an obligation on anyone to do so. It's courtesy and it's nice to do.

Reread the text.

"You have a right to NOT be called something you ARE NOT." You have a right to not be called a "girl" if a "girl" is not something you are

I read it, Jarhyn. That's what I'm objecting to. I agree with the strong desire to NOT be called something you ARE NOT. And I think it's courtesy to address people the way they want (and to not address them the way they don't want). But no, I don't have a *right* to not be called a girl. I'm not a girl, I'm a full grown woman. But I don't have any right - even on this forum - to NOT be called a girl. People are free to call me whatever they want, even if it pisses me off, and even if it's inaccurate or incorrect. I regularly get called things I'm not. I'm sure you do too.

 

[Jarhyn]

Reread the text.

"You have a right to NOT be called something you ARE NOT." You have a right to not be called a "girl" if a "girl" is not something you are

I read it, Jarhyn. That's what I'm objecting to. I agree with the strong desire to NOT be called something you ARE NOT. And I think it's courtesy to address people the way they want (and to not address them the way they don't want). But no, I don't have a *right* to not be called a girl. I'm not a girl, I'm a full grown woman. But I don't have any right - even on this forum - to NOT be called a girl. People are free to call me whatever they want, even if it pisses me off, and even if it's inaccurate or incorrect. I regularly get called things I'm not. I'm sure you do too.

I actually don't get called things I am not very often. The closest it has gotten recently was someone using a nickname that they and all my friends know perfectly well not to use, and which I have a very good reason for rejecting, but they absolutely saw censure for doing so, by that same friend group.

I personally was not aware of the extent of visceral reaction to being called a "girl" some women have. But then, I do understand it. It is in many ways my reason for being particular about people not trying to "nickname" me. Though I have other reasons, too.

At any rate, I do acknowledge such a right, even if it is not widely acknowledged. Do you have a right to lie about others? To misrepresent them? To slander or libel?

Really, I was unaware the extent right up until your posts that "girl" is interpreted as "not a woman". Then, it doesn't come up for me because I also don't catcall, and I don't know anyone that does; I never end up in a position to say "woman" or "girl". With "boy", the interpretation requires context to judge whether it is being used to say "I don't see you as an adult"; but now that I look back on it, I think I see your point, insofar as the context of "girl" is usually by a man that needs to respect the person he is talking to more.