They/Them She/Her He/Him - as you will

[SigmatheZeta]

The only way you can really get to know somebody is to get to know them.

Sure, that's generally a good approach. I'd also say "when someone shows you who they are, believe them". There are a fair number of people out there whose behavior leads me to think that there are multiple categories under the current transgender umbrella, and that perhaps different approaches are needed for different categories.

It's something that a lot of people will get bent about, but the truth is that at least some portion of people who currently identify as transgender are autogynephiles. They are men with a sexual paraphilia, who are aroused at the thought of themselves as women. They are usually (not always) attracted to females, and frequently express their paraphilia by arousal at being in female spaces.

And while it may very well anger some people here and there, I really don't think that the accommodations provided for many transgender people are appropriate to extend to autogynephilic transgender people.

A lot of people seem to have misunderstood the DSM reclassification of gender dysphoria. Many seem to take this to mean that psychologists no longer think that gender dysphoria is a mental health condition at all, and further extend that to mean that gender identity as a philosophical concept is validated by that change. But that's not actually what happened. The change in classification recognizes that gender dysphoria is a symptom, not a condition in and of itself. It is a symptom that can arise from many different underlying conditions.

Some of those conditions are neurobiological, as was demonstrated by the research you posted. I'm tickled that there's evidence to support that, I think it's fantastic. But some of those conditions are purely psychological. Gender dysphoria, in its most common form, is incredibly common among teenagers whose bodies are changing from that of a child to that of an adult, and who are experiencing the sexualization of their bodies as well as their minds, and the influence that sex has on how other people interact with you. Almost every teenage girl on the planet goes through a period of dysphoria because their puberty places significant limits on their movements, their freedoms, and their behavior.

But dysphoria can also be a deflection and a coping mechanism reflective of prior childhood trauma, or of some neuro-atypicalities that frequently pair with delays in the formation of romantic relationships.

That's all a very long way of saying that the topic of gender identity, gender dysphoria, and accommodations for transgender identifying people is complex and multifaceted, and that we all really need to be able to discuss it from different perspectives if we're going to come up with an approach that makes sense.

According to the guy that first suggested the idea of autogynephilia, many of them are effectively asexual due to their sexual feelings being completely satisfied by actually being a woman, and as weird as it sounds, he seems to think his research supports the idea.

In my experience, actually, transgender lesbians seem to be pretty strongly attracted to other transgender lesbians. I think it is partly due to common experience bringing them together. They understand each other, so there is chemistry due to that. I'm not saying this based on any science, just based on how I've seen those relationships develop in other communities I have traveled in. It's kind of cute.

I'm attracted to...really nerdy dudes that like dragons. *nods*

 

[Angra Mainyu]

And then we come back around to the sophistry.

No, I keep making good arguments that you believe are sophistry. It is not the same.

There are true things we can say of most people, and to do so with abandon would be clearly wrong.

That depends on where we say it, why, etc., but even in those cases in which saying those true things would be wrong, they would still be true things. The claims of misgendering are generally false regardless of whether the people accused of misgendering are doing something wrong by engaging in the behavior their enemies falsely characterize as 'misgendering'.

Further, it is newspeak as rank as the invention IngSoc itself to deny the mutability of language to extend to useful concepts rather than the useless.

First, you are making stuff up about what I say. Sure, languages change. The meanings of the words change. Sometimes. And sometimes, they do not. I have argued that the meaning of 'man' and 'woman' in NW-English has not changed. No counterargument was given.

Second, the concepts of NW-woman and NW-man are of course very, very useful to nearly all of the people who use them. The concepts of W-woman and W-man are...well, assumed by me to be coherent, but only for the sake of the argument, as I wanted to focus on something simpler and more modest first.

It is useless and linguistic sophistry to shoehorn biology and biological function into contexts of sociology and sociological function.

And again, you fail to engage my arguments.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Yes they do.

Do you have a counter to my argument, in which I support the conclusion that they do not?

I posted it earlier in the thread:

They/Them She/Her He/Him - as you will

Is it, though? Is it astonishing, illogical, and false? All through history, the use we have used most often is based on how someone presents because we are not privvy to their genitals. So it is almost always about gender. The gender they present with. Whatever "gender" means, the reasoning...

iidb.org

I got accusations of sophistry, but not a single serious attempt at challenging it.

Sometimes it's accidentally misgendering someone. But sometimes it's a deliberate dismissal of their humanity.

Or a deliberate act of self-defense, when they see they are being shamed and falsely accused when trying to use the words they pick properties they care about, like that of being a NW-woman or a NW-man.

I've only been misgendered a couple of times in my life. It was always malicious.
My gender presentation is not ambiguous, especially in real life. I'm big, have a beard, and wouldn't be caught dead in female clothing. And frankly, my persona is more towards the "macho shithead" end of the gender spectrum.

Right, and you are a NW-man. And calling you a woman, in NW-English, would be a false claim. Whether it would be an instance of misgendering I'm not sure. What is gender? Whether a person is a man or a woman? I think so, in NW-English. But in W-English? I do not know (I doubt there is a coherent concept in W-English, actually, but I'm assuming for the sake of the argument there is). But maybe it would be misgendering. Regardless, it would be false. But if someone in NW-English says this person is a woman, they are making a true statement - not an honest mistake, but a true statement. Words have meaning, and meaning depends on usage. And people who speak NW-English use the words in a manner such that well, that is a woman. And the definitions of 'misgender' available in dictionaries provide enough information to realize that true statements in another language - be it NW-English, Arabic, Russian or Chinese - are not instances of misgendering.

 

[Jarhyn]

not giving people what they ask for, when it is unconditionally given to some regardless of complete overlap otherwise, is just the act of being a bigoted asshole.

Non.

If this is incorrect I'm sure you can point out how.

Pronoun usage is not 'giving people what they ask for', whether those pronouns align with gender identity or not. Your framing is mistaken.

Using the pronouns (and trivial 'gender game' offerings) people ask for is exactly giving people what they ask for. Trivially so.

 

[Metaphor]

not giving people what they ask for, when it is unconditionally given to some regardless of complete overlap otherwise, is just the act of being a bigoted asshole.

Non.

If this is incorrect I'm sure you can point out how.

Pronoun usage is not 'giving people what they ask for', whether those pronouns align with gender identity or not. Your framing is mistaken.

Using the pronouns (and trivial 'gender game' offerings) people ask for is exactly giving people what they ask for. Trivially so.

No. When I use pronouns, I am not doing it to 'give people what they ask for'. I am not doing it to be mean. I am not doing it to be kind. I am doing what accords with reality, and it is unethical of you to try to coerce me to utter things I do not believe.

 

[Jarhyn]

not giving people what they ask for, when it is unconditionally given to some regardless of complete overlap otherwise, is just the act of being a bigoted asshole.

Non.

If this is incorrect I'm sure you can point out how.

Pronoun usage is not 'giving people what they ask for', whether those pronouns align with gender identity or not. Your framing is mistaken.

Using the pronouns (and trivial 'gender game' offerings) people ask for is exactly giving people what they ask for. Trivially so.

No. When I use pronouns, I am not doing it to 'give people what they ask for'. I am not doing it to be mean. I am not doing it to be kind. I am doing what accords with reality, and it is unethical of you to try to coerce me to utter things I do not believe.

It is not unethical of anyone to ask anyone to use pronouns that they would use knowing NOTHING else other than.

Your intent means dick all to the effect. You can claim you are not doing it "to be mean" but there is no useful purpose for you "to be doing what you do", either. Knowing it is effectively "mean", and that you have no other useful purpose for it, this reduces your behavior to gnostic meanness whether you like that reality or not.

What accords with reality is that what you are doing is pedantic and socially destructive.

 

[Metaphor]

not giving people what they ask for, when it is unconditionally given to some regardless of complete overlap otherwise, is just the act of being a bigoted asshole.

Non.

If this is incorrect I'm sure you can point out how.

Pronoun usage is not 'giving people what they ask for', whether those pronouns align with gender identity or not. Your framing is mistaken.

Using the pronouns (and trivial 'gender game' offerings) people ask for is exactly giving people what they ask for. Trivially so.

No. When I use pronouns, I am not doing it to 'give people what they ask for'. I am not doing it to be mean. I am not doing it to be kind. I am doing what accords with reality, and it is unethical of you to try to coerce me to utter things I do not believe.

It is not unethical of anyone to ask anyone to use pronouns that they would use knowing NOTHING else other than.

I'm sure you'll finish this thought one day.

Your intent means dick all to the effect.

Bull fucking shit. My intent means everything.

You can claim you are not doing it "to be mean" but there is no useful purpose for you "to be doing what you do", either.

The purpose of using language that accords with reality is that language ought accord with reality.

Knowing it is effectively "mean", and that you have no other useful purpose for it,

No. It is not 'mean' to use pronouns that accord with reality.

My purpose in doing it is using language that accords with reality, and having the right to do so.

this reduces your behavior to gnostic meanness whether you like that reality or not.

I will not allow sadistic dictators to coerce me into participating and validating other people's fantasies.

That includes, by the way, not honouring your cruel mockery of gender dysphoria by claiming to be wizard gender.

What accords with reality is that what you are doing is pedantic and socially destructive.

It is breathtaking that trans activists - who encourage the mutilations of the the genitals of children - have the nerve to talk about destruction.

Gospa moja.

 

[ZiprHead]

No. When I use pronouns, I am not doing it to 'give people what they ask for'. I am not doing it to be mean. I am not doing it to be kind. I am doing what accords with reality, and it is unethical of you to try to coerce me to utter things I do not believe.

I bet you like to tell women their babies are ugly.

 

[Emily Lake]

not giving people what they ask for, when it is unconditionally given to some regardless of complete overlap otherwise, is just the act of being a bigoted asshole.

Not giving grown ups piggy back rides, when it is unconditionally given to some (children) is just the act of being a bigoted asshole?

 

[Emily Lake]

It is not unethical of anyone to ask anyone to use pronouns that they would use knowing NOTHING else other than.

When Jason Momoa asks to be referred to with female pronouns, I'm going to have a REALLY hard time with that.

 

[Jarhyn]

not giving people what they ask for, when it is unconditionally given to some regardless of complete overlap otherwise, is just the act of being a bigoted asshole.

Not giving grown ups piggy back rides, when it is unconditionally given to some (children) is just the act of being a bigoted asshole?

It is not unconditionally given. The condition generally lies somewhere in "you are small enough to not break me and I am still untired enough to do it."

I would give piggyback rides as freely to larger, older people if they were as small as the people I otherwise would give piggyback rides to or I was sufficiently unbreakable.

I would more freely in fact, especially to people over 18, if I so could, since I do not have to limit such interactions to immediate family at that point.

I reserve the right to deny anyone piggyback rides, even within my normal conditions, who denies others pronoun usage.

 

[Metaphor]

No. When I use pronouns, I am not doing it to 'give people what they ask for'. I am not doing it to be mean. I am not doing it to be kind. I am doing what accords with reality, and it is unethical of you to try to coerce me to utter things I do not believe.

I bet you like to tell women their babies are ugly.

Of course I don't. I have very occasionally seen an ugly baby, but withholding my opinion on the ugliness of babies is not uttering something I don't believe. What a strange analogy for you to make.

Now, if there were a law forcing people to lie about the ugliness of babies, and compelling them to say the babies were cute when they were not, I would object to such a law.

 

[Metaphor]

I reserve the right to deny anyone piggyback rides, even within my normal conditions, who denies others pronoun usage.

Good. I reserve the right to not be forced to utter the prayers and repeat the catechism of a religion I do not believe.

 

[Jarhyn]

It is not unethical of anyone to ask anyone to use pronouns that they would use knowing NOTHING else other than.

When Jason Momoa asks to be referred to with female pronouns, I'm going to have a REALLY hard time with that.

And I'm not.

I'm going to treat them exactly like I treat any person shaped exactly like whoever it is that you are talking about who is a woman, which is to say no different from anyone else shaped like that but while saying "she" and "her".

I may ask her what being a woman means to her, and in the back of my head consider that she is not a very normal woman, and maybe she acts very mannish but that's her business.

If she is one to gawk or stare at folks who are in a place, I would tell her to mind her own business and "GET OUT!" Wherever she is at, because gawking and staring is rude.

If she was being difficult about it I would probably see first about getting someone to help with a very large person causing a ruckus and being untoward in the bathroom or whatever, and if she took issue with that and sought to prevent that removal, I would injure her as badly as would need to, to shut down her bad behavior.

Calling her "her" is easy.

 

[TomC]

Do you have a counter to my argument, in which I support the conclusion that they do not?

Yes. It's extraordinarily simple.

What you're arguing isn't false. It's irrelevant.
This thread is about maintaining civility. Biological sciences and semantics are irrelevant to the topic.

All that happened was IIDB made it possible for members to give an unambiguous social cue concerning civilized use of the "English" language, quirky and irrational as it can be.

Hundreds of posts later, it's gotten weird.

Race has nothing to do with the OP, but it keeps resurfacing. I've learned things about other members that did take me by surprise. I had no idea that Emily Lake is ungendered. I'm now embarrassed by reporting a post by Politesse. I still don't know if misgendering people who don't even know IIDB exists is a TOU violation.

It's been an interesting thread, that's for sure. We can hope that the OP, concerning civil conversation on an internet forum without obvious gender cues, has moved forward a bit.

Honestly, it never really seemed like a problem to me.

Reminds me of a friend, veteran of political battles at the municipal level in small town Indiana, saying, "The fighting is never so vicious as when the stakes are low."

Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

Do you have a counter to my argument, in which I support the conclusion that they do not?

Yes. It's extraordinarily simple.

What you're arguing isn't false. It's irrelevant.
This thread is about maintaining civility. Biological sciences and semantics are irrelevant to the topic.

All that happened was IIDB made it possible for members to give an unambiguous social cue concerning civilized use of the "English" language, quirky and irrational as it can be.

Hundreds of posts later, it's gotten weird.

Race has nothing to do with the OP, but it keeps resurfacing. I've learned things about other members that did take me by surprise. I had no idea that Emily Lake is ungendered. I'm now embarrassed by reporting a post by Politesse. I still don't know if misgendering people who don't even know IIDB exists is a TOU violation.

It's been an interesting thread, that's for sure. We can hope that the OP, concerning civil conversation on an internet forum without obvious gender cues, has moved forward a bit.

Honestly, it never really seemed like a problem to me.

Reminds me of a friend, veteran of political battles at the municipal level in small town Indiana, saying, "The fighting is never so vicious as when the stakes are low."

Tom

When people are awful when the stakes are low, I become vicious over it on account of the fact that it denotes unilateral derision. It indicates meanness and a desire to bully, acknowledged or not.

I seek to reject persistent bullying from places I otherwise enjoy, elevating them above such pettiness.

 

[Metaphor]

Do you have a counter to my argument, in which I support the conclusion that they do not?

Yes. It's extraordinarily simple.

What you're arguing isn't false. It's irrelevant.
This thread is about maintaining civility. Biological sciences and semantics are irrelevant to the topic.

All that happened was IIDB made it possible for members to give an unambiguous social cue concerning civilized use of the "English" language, quirky and irrational as it can be.

Hundreds of posts later, it's gotten weird.

Race has nothing to do with the OP, but it keeps resurfacing. I've learned things about other members that did take me by surprise. I had no idea that Emily Lake is ungendered. I'm now embarrassed by reporting a post by Politesse. I still don't know if misgendering people who don't even know IIDB exists is a TOU violation.

That still needs resolving, including 'misgendering' actual iidb posters. There is nothing in the Terms of Use that specifically points to this as a violation, and it would be better if the situation was not ambiguous.

(Contrast with the terms of use specifically forbidding calling another poster a liar).

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Yes. It's extraordinarily simple.

What you're arguing isn't false. It's irrelevant.

Given that what I'm arguing is true, it is relevant to the question of whether people are misgendering others. And that is most certainly relevant when there is a rule against misgendering people that would be enforced improperly against people not misgendering anyone.

This thread is about maintaining civility. Biological sciences and semantics are irrelevant to the topic.

It is not civil to raise false and unwarranted accusations of misgendering against people who want to use the words they have used since they were kids and which allow them to talk about properties they care about, so the points would still remain relevant if you limit the topic in that manner. (though the topic has expanded; my posts were in reply to others').

All that happened was IIDB made it possible for members to give an unambiguous social cue concerning civilized use of the "English" language, quirky and irrational as it can be.

That is not all that happened. There is enforcement at play, and false and unwarranted accusations of misgendering all around. Look at what happened in the other thread, and even - though to a lesser extent - in this one.
Additionally, what has happened is that other people raised a number of other issues, some of which are being discussed.

Hundreds of posts later, it's gotten weird.

Threads tend to be about more things that the OP. That is usual.

Race has nothing to do with the OP, but it keeps resurfacing.

It is used as an analogy, and when properly used, it has to do with one of the central matters at hand, like what is to misgender a person - or more importantly, that some things aren't it.

I've learned things about other members that did take me by surprise. I had no idea that Emily Lake is ungendered.

I think this might be a problem of miscommunication. But I haven't followed the details enough to be sure.

I still don't know if misgendering people who don't even know IIDB exists is a TOU violation.

Which goes back to my point that those are not instances of misgendering as long as they are spoken in NW-English, which is the language that some of us speak (and I would say the vast majority of English speakers as well, but I do not need that hypothesis: it is enough that NW-English is spoken by a sizable portion, say 20% of the population). And again, here the rule problem continues, if they are classified as instances of misgendering when in reality they are not.

Now, if you do not speak NW-English but W-English or some other dialect, perhaps it would be an instance of misgendering (I doubt that you do speak something like that...but I won't make a case for that, at least not yet, as there are other issues at hand to discuss first). But there is still a problem of a lack of clarity in the TOU, so good thing the issues were raised.

 

[ZiprHead]

Do you have a counter to my argument, in which I support the conclusion that they do not?

Yes. It's extraordinarily simple.

What you're arguing isn't false. It's irrelevant.
This thread is about maintaining civility. Biological sciences and semantics are irrelevant to the topic.

All that happened was IIDB made it possible for members to give an unambiguous social cue concerning civilized use of the "English" language, quirky and irrational as it can be.

Hundreds of posts later, it's gotten weird.

Race has nothing to do with the OP, but it keeps resurfacing. I've learned things about other members that did take me by surprise. I had no idea that Emily Lake is ungendered. I'm now embarrassed by reporting a post by Politesse. I still don't know if misgendering people who don't even know IIDB exists is a TOU violation.

That still needs resolving, including 'misgendering' actual iidb posters. There is nothing in the Terms of Use that specifically points to this as a violation, and it would be better if the situation was not ambiguous.

(Contrast with the terms of use specifically forbidding calling another poster a liar).

It's already been posted in this thread,

We already have a rule that deliberate misgendering is a form of goading and is not allowed. We already try to enforce that. We already have to try to manage whether something is a mistake or deliberate.

 

[Metaphor]

Do you have a counter to my argument, in which I support the conclusion that they do not?

Yes. It's extraordinarily simple.

What you're arguing isn't false. It's irrelevant.
This thread is about maintaining civility. Biological sciences and semantics are irrelevant to the topic.

All that happened was IIDB made it possible for members to give an unambiguous social cue concerning civilized use of the "English" language, quirky and irrational as it can be.

Hundreds of posts later, it's gotten weird.

Race has nothing to do with the OP, but it keeps resurfacing. I've learned things about other members that did take me by surprise. I had no idea that Emily Lake is ungendered. I'm now embarrassed by reporting a post by Politesse. I still don't know if misgendering people who don't even know IIDB exists is a TOU violation.

That still needs resolving, including 'misgendering' actual iidb posters. There is nothing in the Terms of Use that specifically points to this as a violation, and it would be better if the situation was not ambiguous.

(Contrast with the terms of use specifically forbidding calling another poster a liar).

It's already been posted in this thread,

We already have a rule that deliberate misgendering is a form of goading and is not allowed. We already try to enforce that. We already have to try to manage whether something is a mistake or deliberate.

The proscription on goading is in the terms of use, but this specific ruling about deliberate misgendering being considered as goading is not. I think since it is a rule, it should be made explicit in the terms of use, and not just posted in this thread, which is many pages long and is not a rules thread.