This week in trans: The Lancet, the ACLU, the Guardian

[ZiprHead]

Of course the State is threatening me. Do X, or we will punish you. That's a threat.

Maybe your time would be better spent lobbying your government to change the laws than wasting it arguing on a little backwater message board.

If I am "wasting" my time arguing about issues on this board, isn't everybody on this board doing the same thing?

Yes. We could all be doing more productive activities then posting here.

If you mean to say "I don't like hearing what you have to say and I want you to stop talking", I think you should simply ban me.

The only people I ban here are spammers and bots and I do so several times daily. The people that ban here due to abusing the rules are the moderators.

Policies are what they are because culture is what it is.

Which you seem to spend a lot of time fighting against in a very unproductive manner..

 

[Toni]

Are you referring to actions based on intentional misuse?

Calling a biological male 'he' cannot be abuse, unless uttering the truth is abusive. But even if it were abuse, the State has no business punishing her citizens for uttering the truth.

I am under the impression that if you engage in polite fictions for the sake of civility, you will have no problem.

I engage in polite fictions all the time. But sometimes I do not. Sometimes I refuse. Sometimes, enough is enough.

I thought you were extremely adamant about the proper usage of sex and gender. How can deliberately calling an individual born with XY chromosomes whose gender is female a male not be misgendering them?

 

[Metaphor]

Yes. We could all be doing more productive activities then posting here.

Then perhaps you ought provide leadership by example, ZiprHead, and stop posting?

Which you seem to spend a lot of time fighting against in a very unproductive manner..

Yes, I've met people before whose minds are not going to be changed.

 

[none]

John Lennon spent a week in the bed, twice.
And he changed the world, didn't he?

 

[Metaphor]

Calling a biological male 'he' cannot be abuse, unless uttering the truth is abusive. But even if it were abuse, the State has no business punishing her citizens for uttering the truth.



I engage in polite fictions all the time. But sometimes I do not. Sometimes I refuse. Sometimes, enough is enough.

I thought you were extremely adamant about the proper usage of sex and gender. How can deliberately calling an individual born with XY chromosomes whose gender is female a male not be misgendering them?

Because when I use pronouns for animals, I use them based on the sex of the animal. It is not possible to misgender somebody if you do not refer to their gender. I have never asked about someone's gender, even the gender of intimate partners. Somehow, it has never come up.

It's possible I may sometimes mis-sex a human being, but that mis-sexing is never deliberate. It's sometimes because they've deliberately tried to obscure their sex, but most times it's just a fleeting mistake on my part. From a distance, I've sometimes mistaken young, thin women with short haircuts as young, twinkish men, but a moment's interaction or additional observation of their height, their gait, their face, their voice, their hands, their breasts, dispels the illusion.

 

[Jarhyn]

Calling a biological male 'he' cannot be abuse, unless uttering the truth is abusive. But even if it were abuse, the State has no business punishing her citizens for uttering the truth.



I engage in polite fictions all the time. But sometimes I do not. Sometimes I refuse. Sometimes, enough is enough.

I thought you were extremely adamant about the proper usage of sex and gender. How can deliberately calling an individual born with XY chromosomes whose gender is female a male not be misgendering them?

Metaphor seems to be under the utterly asinine mistaken notion that "saying true things" is not possibly abusive. I wonder if Metaphor would not think it abusive to walk behind him even for a short while shouting "this man is gay!" Especially in, say, the 80's.

The fact is, we have a whole class of law devoted to truth that is abusive to reveal. This is the very basis of privacy laws.

 

[Metaphor]

Metaphor seems to be under the utterly asinine mistaken notion that "saying true things" is not possibly abusive.

As usual with Jarhyn's guessing games, he is eager with answers and mostly wrong.

I wonder if Metaphor would not think it abusive to walk behind him even for a short while shouting "this man is gay!" Especially in, say, the 80's.

I was an effeminate pregay boy in the 1980s, so I was neither gay nor a man. But I'll make Jarhyn a deal: if he wants to come to Australia to follow me around town shouting "this man is gay", I won't try to stop him.

The fact is, we have a whole class of law devoted to truth that is abusive to reveal. This is the very basis of privacy laws.

I've got a big problem with slander and libel laws, too.

But Jarhyn here appears to believe that calling a biological male 'he' is somehow an act of 'outing', as if the person doing so gained special, secret, birth-certificate knowledge, as if the ordinary function of ordinary eyes and ordinary brains were not enough to deduce somebody's sex.

 

[Toni]

Calling a biological male 'he' cannot be abuse, unless uttering the truth is abusive. But even if it were abuse, the State has no business punishing her citizens for uttering the truth.



I engage in polite fictions all the time. But sometimes I do not. Sometimes I refuse. Sometimes, enough is enough.

I thought you were extremely adamant about the proper usage of sex and gender. How can deliberately calling an individual born with XY chromosomes whose gender is female a male not be misgendering them?

Because when I use pronouns for animals, I use them based on the sex of the animal. It is not possible to misgender somebody if you do not refer to their gender. I have never asked about someone's gender, even the gender of intimate partners. Somehow, it has never come up.

It's possible I may sometimes mis-sex a human being, but that mis-sexing is never deliberate. It's sometimes because they've deliberately tried to obscure their sex, but most times it's just a fleeting mistake on my part. From a distance, I've sometimes mistaken young, thin women with short haircuts as young, twinkish men, but a moment's interaction or additional observation of their height, their gait, their face, their voice, their hands, their breasts, dispels the illusion.

That’s not even close to answering my question. Repeatedly you have castigated me for using the word gender when I meant sex. Clearly you recognize the difference between sex and gender.

 

[Metaphor]

Because when I use pronouns for animals, I use them based on the sex of the animal. It is not possible to misgender somebody if you do not refer to their gender. I have never asked about someone's gender, even the gender of intimate partners. Somehow, it has never come up.

It's possible I may sometimes mis-sex a human being, but that mis-sexing is never deliberate. It's sometimes because they've deliberately tried to obscure their sex, but most times it's just a fleeting mistake on my part. From a distance, I've sometimes mistaken young, thin women with short haircuts as young, twinkish men, but a moment's interaction or additional observation of their height, their gait, their face, their voice, their hands, their breasts, dispels the illusion.

That’s not even close to answering my question. Repeatedly you have castigated me for using the word gender when I meant sex. Clearly you recognize the difference between sex and gender.

Of course I answered your question. Your question was:

How can deliberately calling an individual born with XY chromosomes whose gender is female a male not be misgendering them?

I'll answer again, for your convenience. Calling an animal 'male' is a statement about an animal's sex. When I call somebody 'male', it is not a statement about that person's gender identity, unless I have specifically qualified it as such. In fact, I hardly ever make statements about somebody's gender identity, because I do not have a gender identity, nor do I know the gender identity of most people I have ever interacted with and I don't see what difference it makes. Telling me your gender identity is something like telling me your star sign.

Telling me your gender identity is 'female', or 'non-binary', or 'floragender', or 'faegender', or 'libragender', or any other descriptor is information I did not ask for and I will not refer to. I do not need to know your gender identity and if I am in one of those situations where society segregates me by sex, I can be segregated by my sex easily enough, and my gender identity does not need to enter the picture (especially seeing as I don't have one).

 

[Toni]

Of course I answered your question. Your question was:

How can deliberately calling an individual born with XY chromosomes whose gender is female a male not be misgendering them?

I'll answer again, for your convenience. Calling an animal 'male' is a statement about an animal's sex. When I call somebody 'male', it is not a statement about that person's gender identity, unless I have specifically qualified it as such. In fact, I hardly ever make statements about somebody's gender identity, because I do not have a gender identity, nor do I know the gender identity of most people I have ever interacted with and I don't see what difference it makes. Telling me your gender identity is something like telling me your star sign.

Telling me your gender identity is 'female', or 'non-binary', or 'floragender', or 'faegender', or 'libragender', or any other descriptor is information I did not ask for and I will not refer to. I do not need to know your gender identity and if I am in one of those situations where society segregates me by sex, I can be segregated by my sex easily enough, and my gender identity does not need to enter the picture (especially seeing as I don't have one).

Then why do you insist on castigating me when I am sloppy about my word choice?

Clearly gender exists. Clearly, you recognize that it exists. Clearly you are engaging in some mental gymnastics to try to convince me that you believe differently?

 

[Jarhyn]

Let's imagine for a moment that you see a woman on the street. She has clearly done a lot of work to accentuate her hat.

Now, if I were going to the Metaphor school of truth, it would not be abusive to say "I think that hat looks too small on your head, and makes your face look fat".

 

[Metaphor]

Then why do you insist on castigating me when I am sloppy about my word choice?

I am very careful with my word choice. Not because that's my natural state, but because there are people on this board who will read against the text and distort anything I say, because they do not like what I am saying.

Now, I do not believe I have been 'sloppy' with my word choices. I have not said anything in the above post that conflicts with how I've used the words 'sex' and 'gender' before.

Clearly gender exists.

Gender identity exists because thoughts exist. Gender identity is a thought in a person's head. I consider uttered gender identities something like a star sign or like a cosmic Myers-Briggs personality type. I just don't need to know.

Clearly, you recognize that it exists. Clearly you are engaging in some mental gymnastics to try to convince me that you believe differently?

I don't know in what universe you can believe I have tried to obscure that I believe gender identity exists. I don't know what is going on in your head that you can think that. I don't know how you are processing my posts, except with extreme prejudice. I do not want to count how many times I've said 'gender identity exists and is a thought in a person's head' or 'gender identity can be a spectrum, because a thought can be anything'.

Thoughts exist. Personalities exist. When somebody, say, somebody like Jarhyn, says "my gender is wizardgender", I believe them. But it's like telling me your star sign. I did not ask and do not care.

But I do care when people believe that sex and gender are interchangeable, or, worse, that we should pretend that somebody's gender identity is their sex when we are talking about situations where people have traditionally been separated by sex.

 

[ZiprHead]

Yes. We could all be doing more productive activities then posting here.

Then perhaps you ought provide leadership by example, ZiprHead, and stop posting?

Since when is it my responsibility to provide leadership to anyone? And if I stopped posting, how would anyone know I've taken a leadership position?

Which you seem to spend a lot of time fighting against in a very unproductive manner..

Yes, I've met people before whose minds are not going to be changed.

I'd bet you've met a lot of such people considering the inanity of your postings. Also, you seem to think that changing minds on an obscure message board in America will somehow change laws in Australia perplexes me.

 

[Metaphor]

Since when is it my responsibility to provide leadership to anyone?

I did not say it was your responsibility. I was suggesting that you appear to be happy dispensing advice that you wouldn't take yourself.

And if I stopped posting, how would anyone know I've taken a leadership position?

You openly advertise your leadership position.

I'd bet you've met a lot of such people considering the inanity of your postings. Also, you seem to think that changing minds on an obscure message board in America will somehow change laws in Australia perplexes me.

What I find perplexing is your belief that I somehow made or implied that talking on an international message board will change laws in Australia.

 

[none]

I did not say it was your responsibility. I was suggesting that you appear to be happy dispensing advice that you wouldn't take yourself.



You openly advertise your leadership position.

I'd bet you've met a lot of such people considering the inanity of your postings. Also, you seem to think that changing minds on an obscure message board in America will somehow change laws in Australia perplexes me.

What I find perplexing is your belief that I somehow made or implied that talking on an international message board will change laws in Australia.

Don't worry Methaphor, the internet is forever.

 

[ZiprHead]

I did not say it was your responsibility. I was suggesting that you appear to be happy dispensing advice that you wouldn't take yourself.

I'm not the one constantly complaining about my government's policies on trans people. You are. I don't need to take my advice.

 

[Metaphor]

I did not say it was your responsibility. I was suggesting that you appear to be happy dispensing advice that you wouldn't take yourself.

I'm not the one constantly complaining about my government's policies on trans people. You are. I don't need to take my advice.

I didn't think you would.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I did not say it was your responsibility. I was suggesting that you appear to be happy dispensing advice that you wouldn't take yourself.

I'm not the one constantly complaining about my government's policies on trans people. You are. I don't need to take my advice.

Yeah, gotta say, when i see a thread title here, i never have thought to myself, 'I bet that's a Ziprhead thread.'

 

[Jarhyn]

I did not say it was your responsibility. I was suggesting that you appear to be happy dispensing advice that you wouldn't take yourself.

I'm not the one constantly complaining about my government's policies on trans people. You are. I don't need to take my advice.

Yeah, gotta say, when i see a thread title here, i never have thought to myself, 'I bet that's a Ziprhead thread.'

"This week in trans" says it all to me, that Metaphor has an obsession, not just with trans people, but digging up the most idiotic trans people to put them on display. It's been tempting to start a "this week in Australian gay culture" where every week I impugn a different idiotic Australian gay person for being a complete tool bag. That's not an attack, right? Right? Beuller?

At least, though, were I to do this I would be a little better at actually finding and vetting every "idiotic gay Australian" I were to post about as actually idiotic. It would not do to make a posting about gay Australians being idiots and then fall on my face as thoroughly as some of these in actually toeing the line.

 

[WAB]

Yeah, gotta say, when i see a thread title here, i never have thought to myself, 'I bet that's a Ziprhead thread.'

"This week in trans" says it all to me, that Metaphor has an obsession, not just with trans people, but digging up the most idiotic trans people to put them on display. It's been tempting to start a "this week in Australian gay culture" where every week I impugn a different idiotic Australian gay person for being a complete tool bag. That's not an attack, right? Right? Beuller?

Bullshit, Jarhyn. Have you been tracking M's threads, reading his posts, examining them, paying attention?

Can you read English, or is it your second language?

I thought you were brighter than this nonsense you keep spouting, not only about Metaphor, but Emily, and myself one time, when I explained to you (very nicely, delicately) that dragging a woman out of a bar by her hair was NEVER an option a legitimate police officer would take, or indeed ANY rational, not-insane individual with authority granted to them from someone above their pay-grade: i.e. Not any yahoo with whatever genitalia who has only the brute power and lack of intellectual discipline and genuine courage that fuels many a TV-infected gun nut here and elsewhere.

***

And rocks are not agents. Get used to it.