• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Can We Discuss Sex & Gender / Transgender People?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
7,439
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
any
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
And what's all this nonsense about what words mean in 1972 as opposed to now? The person you're attacking wasn't even born in 1972. I have no reason to valorize 1972 as the perfect form of SAE, why would anyone but a Boomer consider 1972 some sort of all-important linguistic benchmark? Languages change. They cannot contain and cannot convey grand ontological truths without error, assumption, symbolic exaggeration, and the particular follies of their culture and time. If you're after fundamental truths, American slang is not the place to look. You're also woefully uneducated on LGBTQ history if you think transgendered people didn't exist until recently. For as long as English has existed, it has had to cope with the occasional reality of someone who has been misgendered at birth, as do all languages. If the affected person survives the social reaction to their situation, it has generally been the case that their friends simply call them by the name and pronouns they prefer, as is still the recommended course among decent people.
 

Generation55

Banned
Banned
Joined
Nov 5, 2021
Messages
163
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic
And what's all this nonsense about what words mean in 1972 as opposed to now? The person you're attacking wasn't even born in 1972. I have no reason to valorize 1972 as the perfect form of SAE, why would anyone but a Boomer consider 1972 some sort of all-important linguistic benchmark? Languages change. They cannot contain and cannot convey grand ontological truths without error, assumption, symbolic exaggeration, and the particular follies of their culture and time. If you're after fundamental truths, American slang is not the place to look. You're also woefully uneducated on LGBTQ history if you think transgendered people didn't exist until recently. For as long as English has existed, it has had to cope with the occasional reality of someone who has been misgendered at birth, as do all languages. If the affected person survives the social reaction to their situation, it has generally been the case that their friends simply call them by the name and pronouns they prefer, as is still the recommended course among decent people.
But, nobody has established what transgender even means. People say that were not comfortable being raised as a boy/girl so now they feel like the opposite. But, this implies that gender norms exist and are real but gender theorists say the norms are a construct that don't mean anything. So, feeling like a "boy" or "girl" or "man" or "woman" has no meaning if there are not supposed to be any norms. If you ask, "Why do you feel like a man or woman? What does that mean? What is it based on? Are you implying men and women are supposed to do things differently?" the best you get is, "Well, that's just how I feel inside," but how can you feel like something that you don't even know the meaning of?

I can't be the only one who finds it to be a conundrum that some parents say, "Our son played with dolls and loved to wear dresses and then he transitioned into a girl" when they also follow it up with things like, "Wearing dresses and liking dolls isn't a girl thing. Boys can play with that stuff, too. It's just a construct that we decided girls play with dolls and like dresses." So, how can playing with dolls and wearing dresses mean their son is actually a girl, then? Why isn't he just a boy who likes playing with dolls and wearing dresses?

This is why this stuff is so confusing. I think they have good intentions to try and not offend anyone and that's why they try so hard to justify every angle of this. It comes from a good place of wanting to accept everyone, but you just end up tying yourself into mental knots. I will admit, it does sound very accepting to say, "If LeBron James announced today that he is now a woman, then she can go play in the WNBA tomorrow." But, I feel that even supporter of trans people in sports would start biting their lip and cringing in my opinion, even if LeBron actually does 100% believe he is a woman and he's not just trolling.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
7,439
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
any
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
gender theorists say the norms are a construct that don't mean anything.
Only the bolded part is true. Unless you know some gender theorists that I do not. Both social and personal views are on some level "constructed" and they all have meaning. Indeed, the reason humans create social constructs in the first place is to help them understand the world, in a universe that is frequently too complex to understand or navigate without cultural benchmarks to attach semiotic value to and organize our thoughts around. They are, however, artifacts of humans and our cultures. They are malleable, predictably changing over time, and do not by themselves define any sort of essential reality.

social norms.png

https://gsdrc.org/professional-dev/social-norms/
 

Generation55

Banned
Banned
Joined
Nov 5, 2021
Messages
163
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic
gender theorists say the norms are a construct that don't mean anything.
Only the bolded part is true. Unless you know some gender theorists that I do not. Both social and personal views are on some level "constructed" and they all have meaning. Indeed, the reason humans create social constructs in the first place is to help them understand the world, in a universe that is frequently too complex to understand or navigate without cultural benchmarks to attach semiotic value to and organize our thoughts around. They are, however, artifacts of humans and our cultures. They are malleable, predictably changing over time, and do not by themselves define any sort of essential reality.

View attachment 36149

https://gsdrc.org/professional-dev/social-norms/
How does that explain parents who say their son is a girl because he plays with dolls and then saying that playing with dolls doesn't mean you're a girl?
 

SigmatheZeta

Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2021
Messages
364
Gender
she/her
Basic Beliefs
Generally, I am rooted in both ancient Epicurean and ancient Pyrrhonist sentiments, although I am somewhat sympathetic toward the intentions behind ancient Cynicism.
SigmatheZeta said:
To my understanding, transgender men almost invariably have XX chromosomes, and some but not all of them desire to possess a penis. Nevertheless, they prefer to be referred to as men, and they may generally be expected to present themselves as what is considered to be masculine in their culture. In progressive cultures, it is considered to be polite to refer to them as men and to use the masculine pronoun when you are talking about them.
That is not what I was asking. What I want to know is whether Politesse (and now you) think that they are men, women, neither, etc. (see the questions for details), in 1972, 1992, and 2021 American English.

SigmatheZeta said:
The current position of the American Academy of Pediatrics is that transgender children are substantially more likely to survive until adulthood if their parents support them by affirming their stated gender.
What does "affirming their stated gender" mean? Does it mean affirming that one agrees with claims like 'I am a girl', or 'I am a boy'?

If so, then those expressions have some meaning, in English, so here a question is: are they true?

And to address that question and make my case, I asked a few questions to Politesse - and to you now since you replied as well.

SigmatheZeta said:
I am going to assume that you agree with the objective of helping children, transgender or not, survive until adulthood. I do not believe that this is an unreasonable thing to assume about you, although I will acknowledge that I might be mistaken in this assumption. Just let me know.

Generally, I think that helping children survive into adulthood for the sake of them is a good thing, all other things equal. In some cases (e.g., parents) it is also a moral obligation (as always, all other things equal).


SigmatheZeta said:
In that case, it is correct to call Alex a transgender man, which implies the information that I have furnished above.
No, that does not follow:

First, I am not Alex's parent.

Second, Alex is not a child. Assuming Alex exists, Alex is an adult.

Third, Alex does not exist.

Fourth, imagine that there is good evidence that when children say they have immortal souls and will live forever, these children are substantially more likely to survive into adulthood if parents - new adoptive ones if all parents died - affirmed their claims. That would provide a good reason - as always, all other things equal (AOTE), etc. - for parents to lie to their children. It would not provide a good reason for those parents to believe that the claims are true, or to attack others who don't agree with their religion. Similarly, imagine that there is good evidence that children who lost one of their parents - or both - are substantially more likely to survive into adulthood if the surviving parent - or adoptive parents depending on the case - were to affirm their claims. Again that would give a good reason for those parents - AOTE - to lie to those children, not to believe the claims or to attack other adults for saying there is no afterlife, or things like that.
SigmatheZeta said:
I also assume that you agree with the objective of helping Alex survive until adulthood.
Given that Alex does not exist, no.
Assuming Alex existed in our universe, then given that Alex is an adult, no, as the objective would make no sense: Alex has already survided into adulthood. Remember, Alex is 25.

SigmatheZeta said:
In that case, it is also pragmatically correct for you to merely refer to Alex as a boy in almost all social contexts.
No, that does not follow (see above).

SigmatheZeta said:
Nobody that was familiar with the situation would assume that you believed that Alex had a penis or X/y chromosomes. They would just assume that you were a good person.
The question is not whether Alex has a penis or XY chromosomes, but rather the questions I asked, and which you keep not addressing.

SigmatheZeta said:
In my case, I am a 38 year old transgender woman, and I barely care a rodent's rectum about the opinion of somebody that I barely know. That is an attitude that I have learned with maturity.
In my case, I have zero interest in discussing your particular case, or that of anyone in the thread (no offense, but I really do not want to talk about you in particular, or about anyone in this thread in particular). I want do discuss transgender claims in general, using any examples at hand - except precisely those of forum members, due to the very obscure rule against "misgendering", which no one has clarified for me.


SigmatheZeta said:
A child, on the other hand, is immature by literal definition. It might be childish for them to attempt to kill themselves over misgendering, but...children are supposed to be childish.

And again, what is "misgendering"?

SigmatheZeta said:
We also do not let them have sex with adults, even if they want to. They have different needs from those of adults.
Fortunately, Alex is not a child. Alex is an adult that does not exist in reality. And I am not Alex's parent - well, I am Alex's creator I guess, but that's only a metaphorical parent.

SigmatheZeta said:
Ergo, you need merely add the qualifier that Alex is a transgender boy. This would clarify your knowledge of the situation. Most people would know what you meant.
If "transgender" modifies "boy", then Alex is not a transgender boy, since Alex is an adult. Remember, Alex is 25. I am asking whether you think:


a. In 1972 American English, is Alex a woman? A man? Neither? There is no fact of the matter? Other?
b. In 1992 American English, is Alex a woman? A man? Neither? There is no fact of the matter? Other?
c. In 2021 American English, is Alex a woman? A man? Neither? There is no fact of the matter? Other?


If "transgender boy" is some compound term and not a kind of boy, then I have no idea what "transgender boy" means (unless perhaps it means some other sort of non-adult, in which case, Alex is still not that, as Alex is an adult).
Adults have primary responsibility for their own survival, which would include Alex.

If Alex started hormone replacement therapy early, hits the gym regularly, and has an easily provoked temper, then you might or might not agree that Alex constitutes a man, but if you can't keep your opinions to yourself, then you also have primary responsibility for your own survival.

I am not in the habit of picking fights with gorillas.

Alex is a dangerous dude. He's not patient like I am. He's not nice like I am. If you misgender me, then I will just correct you. I am nice. Alex is not nice. If you misgender Alex, then he will give you an orbital fracture, and that's if he's in a good mood.

If you misgender a transgender person, then you are gambling a lot on the assumption that they are better people than you are. Every time, you are gambling that they will be nice people that just want to get along with you.

One day, one of them is also going to be a very dangerous and despicable human being. They are just like any other human beings. Some of them can be mean, and some of them can be cruel, callous, and vindictive. One of them might be a highly vindictive transgender woman, and she just might also be in a position of power. In some highly specialized industries, insulting the wrong person means that the only way that you will ever get paid to do something again is by going back to college and starting a new career.

You got lucky with me. I will just meekly tell you, "I really prefer to be called she/her, please." I find that people like me better if I am patient with them and tolerant. That means more to me than always being called by the right pronoun, even though it would be nice if people did.

However, Alex is a very dangerous man. The last guy that picked a fight with him was put into a coma, dude.

My advice to you is that you should pick your battles. It's not worth it.

If you are truly obsessed with being absolutely precise, then Alex is a transgender man. At least that way, you would be thoroughly precise. You would be denoting the fact that Alex has XX chromosomes and probably does not have a penis, and even if he does, it's probably not very large because plastic surgery can only do but so much. If Alex is in a very good mood, then he might even let you get away with it.

I might let you get away with misgendering me, but that's because I take pride in being thick-skinned, and I do not have room in my life to take umbrage over petty shit. My survival strategy is based on winning over positive people that love me and respect me and make me feel like I belong. Most people around me would never misgender me on purpose, but that's because I am good at putting positive people into my life. I worked very hard to develop the social skills to identify good people and to persuade them to care about me. That is my strategy.

Alex's strategy is not one that I agree with. I disagree with Alex. I don't think it is really going to lead to Alex having a very good quality of life if he just beats up anybody that misgenders him. I cannot stop him from pursuing his own survival strategy to its logical conclusion, but I really wish that I could change Alex's mind. I wish that I could teach Alex that there is a better way.

I am sorry that your creation turned out to be a demented and misguided man. Now that he has been created, though, I ask that you think about your loved ones. Think about the people that would miss you if you got killed by picking a fight with that guy.

Every time you try to pick a fight with some guy, you are gambling that he is the better man, and one day, you will lose that gamble. This is not a very good way to live. It just leads to people getting hurt, and eventually, the person that gets hurt is going to be you.

You are responsible for your own survival. If you misgendered somebody, and that person chose to deal with it by ruining you, then while I might disagree with how that person handled the matter, what can I do for you? Offer you sympathy? Pat you on the hand and tell you "there, there"? Although I might feel sorry for you if you ruined your life by picking a fight with the wrong person, I am nevertheless not responsible for your decisions. I am not to blame if you picked a fight with somebody that is not as decent of a human being as I am.

How is it worse if a transgender person chooses a destructive route, when you offend them, than it is if a cisgender person chooses a destructive route? It is not good for anybody to use a destructive approach to solving their problems. That is why I disagree with "woke" culture. That's why I disagree with the strategy of trying to deal with the problem of social injustice based on some "eye-for-an-eye" bullshit. It's not bad behavior because it is immoral, but it's bad behavior because it is stupid. Maybe it's not worse if a transgender person chooses to be destructive in how they deal with their problems, but it's not better, either.

The "Woke Generation" failed. They decided to deal with their problems by destroying anybody that thought differently from how they do, and here is what they got for their trouble: for the first time in half of a century, violent hate groups are on the rise. Somebody was murdered in Charlottesville, Virginia, and nobody can replace that person's life. Nobody would be the same person that that person could have been if that person had had a chance to spend their life trying to make a difference in the world. For the first time in history since our country was founded, a group of militants tried to disrupt our government based on a violent coup, and if our country continues down its current trajectory, the next such event could damage our democratic institutions beyond possible repair.

I choose what I think is a better way. I hope I can convince you that I am not the same kind of person as those people that choose to deal with their problems by hurting people. I hope I can get you to see that I do things differently, and I hope I can get you to see that it works.

However, I stop being nice pretty fast if somebody picks on a child or the distraught parent of a transgender boy that was battered and sexually assaulted while he was just trying to use the toilet. Even my kind of nice has its limits.
 
Last edited:

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
7,634
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Another question for readers interested in a serious discussion. Suppose I say "the US already had women presidents, because D. Trump, G.W. Bush, B. Obama and J. Biden are all women."

Is there an objective fact of the matter as to whether my assertion is true?
Yes.


Thank you. So, the word "woman" ascribes some properties to an entity, in general, and this is independent of what the person in question thinks. My aim is to discuss what properties those are.

Suppose hypothetically that those people actually have some typical female-like mental properties, like - say - preferring to play with dolls over trucks, things like that. They also have penises, testicles, no vagina, uterus, or ovaries, and also typical male-like mental properties: they experience having a penis, they have a mind that formed experiencing that for decades, and no experience of having a vagina, etc. Would you say that under that hypothesis, my claim is true in 2021 American English? What about 1992, and 1972?
No.
ETA: I seriously dislike the new forum software. :(
The reality is that no word ascribes any properties to any thing. That thing has properties. That thing will have those properties no matter what words are used. Of course this discussion was already had in this thread with gen55.

What AM can't seem to understand is that when one person unilaterally makes an attempt to "ascribe properties" through language (through ascribing a pronoun unilaterally), they put those they so attack in boxes, and against their consent.

The result is that weaponizing language to label other than for the purpose of outing bad faith is simply not ethical.

The function of a pronoun is to say "treat me like this please" and the corresponding usage of it says "OK, I will respect you."

It doesn't matter what properties their body or even behavior exhibit. It is entirely a discussion of how someone wishes to be treated with regards to the binary in treatment that is generally afforded.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
7,634
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
There is only one reason people have difficulty addressing a transwoman as "she" and engage in the related cultural genderizations ("treating" her like a "she", so to speak)... And that is the fear of the realization they are sexually attracted to her. The outrage is a form of homophobia that is more common in "straight males" than not, related to the sexual orientation that they think other people think they have. If someone thinks that a man like that might be homosexual, then that is horrific fear come true for them.
So, giving any transwoman the benefit of being treated how they wish to be treated, in the minds of these males I am describing, is akin to "being gay"... or "looking like they are probably gay".
what is thought by society as masculine sexuality is extremely black and white... it's gay or it's not. Feminine sexuality, as traditionally seen, is accepted as more fluid. So, a "man" engaging in flexible thinking about sexuality - total faggot.
We disagree about some things, sure but this is just straight up gold. I had been having some thoughts vaguely like this, but this just snapped it into perspective. I can see it for a lot of people, but not for the likes of @TomC or @Metaphor both of which are gay.

I suppose part of it may come from similar mores? But I'm not really sure.

Of course, it has evolved as a discussion since the days of Stonewall, when I assume folks like Metaphor and Tom were still forming opinions on their sexuality.

Back then, it was such that the mindset was entirely against ever accepting people with penises as "women", and the only way someone without ever was was if they passed well enough to stealth. Only the bravest ever tried, and only the luckiest of them succeeded and only by making concessions and compromises and sacrifices with society that they never should have been forced into, but were due to the unfortunate shape of birth in ignorance.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
7,634
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
And what's all this nonsense about what words mean in 1972 as opposed to now? The person you're attacking wasn't even born in 1972. I have no reason to valorize 1972 as the perfect form of SAE, why would anyone but a Boomer consider 1972 some sort of all-important linguistic benchmark? Languages change. They cannot contain and cannot convey grand ontological truths without error, assumption, symbolic exaggeration, and the particular follies of their culture and time. If you're after fundamental truths, American slang is not the place to look. You're also woefully uneducated on LGBTQ history if you think transgendered people didn't exist until recently. For as long as English has existed, it has had to cope with the occasional reality of someone who has been misgendered at birth, as do all languages. If the affected person survives the social reaction to their situation, it has generally been the case that their friends simply call them by the name and pronouns they prefer, as is still the recommended course among decent people.
But, nobody has established what transgender even means. People say that were not comfortable being raised as a boy/girl so now they feel like the opposite. But, this implies that gender norms exist and are real but gender theorists say the norms are a construct that don't mean anything. So, feeling like a "boy" or "girl" or "man" or "woman" has no meaning if there are not supposed to be any norms. If you ask, "Why do you feel like a man or woman? What does that mean? What is it based on? Are you implying men and women are supposed to do things differently?" the best you get is, "Well, that's just how I feel inside," but how can you feel like something that you don't even know the meaning of?

I can't be the only one who finds it to be a conundrum that some parents say, "Our son played with dolls and loved to wear dresses and then he transitioned into a girl" when they also follow it up with things like, "Wearing dresses and liking dolls isn't a girl thing. Boys can play with that stuff, too. It's just a construct that we decided girls play with dolls and like dresses." So, how can playing with dolls and wearing dresses mean their son is actually a girl, then? Why isn't he just a boy who likes playing with dolls and wearing dresses?

This is why this stuff is so confusing. I think they have good intentions to try and not offend anyone and that's why they try so hard to justify every angle of this. It comes from a good place of wanting to accept everyone, but you just end up tying yourself into mental knots. I will admit, it does sound very accepting to say, "If LeBron James announced today that he is now a woman, then she can go play in the WNBA tomorrow." But, I feel that even supporter of trans people in sports would start biting their lip and cringing in my opinion, even if LeBron actually does 100% believe he is a woman and he's not just trolling.
Read. The. Thread. You are committing a straw man.

Nobody, at least in this thread is saying "if a talented NBA star socially transitioned tomorrow, they should be welcomed into the WNBA."

Arguments, instead, have been laid down to make both leagues "coed" and to separate them purely by historical testosterone exposure
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
28,059
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
SigmatheZeta said:
To my understanding, transgender men almost invariably have XX chromosomes, and some but not all of them desire to possess a penis. Nevertheless, they prefer to be referred to as men, and they may generally be expected to present themselves as what is considered to be masculine in their culture. In progressive cultures, it is considered to be polite to refer to them as men and to use the masculine pronoun when you are talking about them.
That is not what I was asking. What I want to know is whether Politesse (and now you) think that they are men, women, neither, etc. (see the questions for details), in 1972, 1992, and 2021 American English.
I don't understand the point you're trying to make here. It seems as if you don't understand the fact that language changes over time.
 

SigmatheZeta

Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2021
Messages
364
Gender
she/her
Basic Beliefs
Generally, I am rooted in both ancient Epicurean and ancient Pyrrhonist sentiments, although I am somewhat sympathetic toward the intentions behind ancient Cynicism.
SigmatheZeta said:
To my understanding, transgender men almost invariably have XX chromosomes, and some but not all of them desire to possess a penis. Nevertheless, they prefer to be referred to as men, and they may generally be expected to present themselves as what is considered to be masculine in their culture. In progressive cultures, it is considered to be polite to refer to them as men and to use the masculine pronoun when you are talking about them.
That is not what I was asking. What I want to know is whether Politesse (and now you) think that they are men, women, neither, etc. (see the questions for details), in 1972, 1992, and 2021 American English.
I don't understand the point you're trying to make here. It seems as if you don't understand the fact that language changes over time.
Reconstructed proto-languages sound kind of rad, though.

 

Enigma

Shaman of the Machine Spirits
Joined
Sep 16, 2002
Messages
87
Location
In the Database
Gender
Whatever I say it is.
Basic Beliefs
Nature kinda sucks. Crafting disturbingly hilarious mental images can be both fun and educational.
The reality is that no word ascribes any properties to any thing. That thing has properties. That thing will have those properties no matter what words are used. Of course this discussion was already had in this thread with gen55.

What AM can't seem to understand is that when one person unilaterally makes an attempt to "ascribe properties" through language (through ascribing a pronoun unilaterally), they put those they so attack in boxes, and against their consent.

Nobody has a monopoly on control over how they are (or "should be") perceived and acknowledged.

If you disagree with this then, as I'm the rightful God-Emperor of Humanity, I expect you to pledge your fealty to me in short order.

The result is that weaponizing language to label other than for the purpose of outing bad faith is simply not ethical.

On what basis do you presume that those who claim that, for example, transwomen aren't women aren't doing so in order to out bad faith any more than you (potentially) claiming that I'm not the rightful God-Emperor of Humanity?

The function of a pronoun is to say "treat me like this please" and the corresponding usage of it says "OK, I will respect you."

It doesn't matter what properties their body or even behavior exhibit. It is entirely a discussion of how someone wishes to be treated with regards to the binary in treatment that is generally afforded.

Let's test this theory out:

I identify as a male human of superior genetics, intellect, and refinement. As such, my pronouns are M'lord/M'lord's.

As an upstanding and moral being, I hereby pledge to acknowledge and respect anyone else's pronouns at least as often (and with no more sarcasm) than they acknowledge and respect mine.

Are you going to acknowledge and respect my pronouns?
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
7,634
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
The reality is that no word ascribes any properties to any thing. That thing has properties. That thing will have those properties no matter what words are used. Of course this discussion was already had in this thread with gen55.

What AM can't seem to understand is that when one person unilaterally makes an attempt to "ascribe properties" through language (through ascribing a pronoun unilaterally), they put those they so attack in boxes, and against their consent.

Nobody has a monopoly on control over how they are (or "should be") perceived and acknowledged.

If you disagree with this then, as I'm the rightful God-Emperor of Humanity, I expect you to pledge your fealty to me in short order.

The result is that weaponizing language to label other than for the purpose of outing bad faith is simply not ethical.

On what basis do you presume that those who claim that, for example, transwomen aren't women aren't doing so in order to out bad faith any more than you (potentially) claiming that I'm not the rightful God-Emperor of Humanity?

The function of a pronoun is to say "treat me like this please" and the corresponding usage of it says "OK, I will respect you."

It doesn't matter what properties their body or even behavior exhibit. It is entirely a discussion of how someone wishes to be treated with regards to the binary in treatment that is generally afforded.

Let's test this theory out:

I identify as a male human of superior genetics, intellect, and refinement. As such, my pronouns are M'lord/M'lord's.

As an upstanding and moral being, I hereby pledge to acknowledge and respect anyone else's pronouns at least as often (and with no more sarcasm) than they acknowledge and respect mine.

Are you going to acknowledge and respect my pronouns?
The difference here, and I am glad to point it out to you so you may never in ignorance make such a mistake again:

To afford a title of fealty is not the same as to afford a title you afford half of anyone, and which owes no fealty. I will have no gods or kings, and will not suffer any to live over me. Period. Should a king try to rule me I will kill them with all to my left and right who would seek such freedom.

So if you declare yourself as God emperor, I most certainly will treat you as I would any who would seek that title: not with my staff, but with my sword. And I do not think you would like to see a wizard make a sword.

Does that answer your question?

Edit: I related this latest interaction to my husband. While I imagine you are fine with me not treating you as I believe befits a god-emperor, he is absolutely extatic at the idea. He agrees to in fact use the full title as your entirety of pronoun.
 

Enigma

Shaman of the Machine Spirits
Joined
Sep 16, 2002
Messages
87
Location
In the Database
Gender
Whatever I say it is.
Basic Beliefs
Nature kinda sucks. Crafting disturbingly hilarious mental images can be both fun and educational.
The difference here, and I am glad to point it out to you so you may never in ignorance make such a mistake again:

To afford a title of fealty is not the same as to afford a title you afford half of anyone, and which owes no fealty. I will have no gods or kings, and will not suffer any to live over me. Period. Should a king try to rule me I will kill them with all to my left and right who would seek such freedom.

So if you declare yourself as God emperor, I most certainly will treat you as I would any who would seek that title: not with my staff, but with my sword. And I do not think you would like to see a wizard make a sword.

Does that answer your question?

Very well, then.

As the rightful God-Emperor of Humanity, I hereby release you and anyone with whom you have ever interacted with or will ever interact with from any obligation of fealty to me, retroactively if necessary, unless they explicitly, of their own free will, and without coersion, pledge themselves as such.

You are all freemen as far as I am concerned.

All I ask is that you acknowledge and respect my stated gender (male human of superior genetics, intellect, and refinement) and my stated pronouns (M'lord/M'lord's) to the extent that you would do so for anyone else's declared gender identity. I ask this not as a god or a king, but merely as a person who has a monopoly on how I should be perceived and acknowledged, as do all people. Do you have any objections to doing so?

Edit: I related this latest interaction to my husband. While I imagine you are fine with me not treating you as I believe befits a god-emperor, he is absolutely extatic at the idea. He agrees to in fact use the full title as your entirety of pronoun.

If he wishes to re-pledge fealty to me, I have no objections to him doing so.
 

Rhea

Cyborg with a Tiara
Staff member
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
12,706
Location
Recluse
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
Nobody has a monopoly on control over how they are (or "should be") perceived and acknowledged.

If you disagree with this then, as I'm the rightful God-Emperor of Humanity, I expect you to pledge your fealty to me in short order.


You appear to have fabricated a “right” to fealty in there.
 

Rhea

Cyborg with a Tiara
Staff member
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
12,706
Location
Recluse
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
I personally would like to get rid of gendered pronouns altogether. They are used for purposes of discrimination and hurt. They have no specific need, as the only time it actually matters, other descriptors are available.
 

TomC

Veteran Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
3,078
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
I personally would like to get rid of gendered pronouns altogether. They are used for purposes of discrimination and hurt. They have no specific need, as the only time it actually matters, other descriptors are available.
I'm with you!

Gendered pronouns are so primitive and irrational. The standard English substitute, when someone's gender is unknown, is using the plural they/them. That's nearly as irrational.

Why is this such a big deal?

I'm not being sarcastic or snarky here. There's no rational reason for gendered pronouns, IMHO.
Tom
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
7,634
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
I personally would like to get rid of gendered pronouns altogether. They are used for purposes of discrimination and hurt. They have no specific need, as the only time it actually matters, other descriptors are available.
That's why I go with "wizard" if anyone asks.
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
9,069
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
Certainly nobody has behaved well enough in that regard to claim that they have some moral high ground of respect. What it does say is that neither you nor I nor Emily* (nor metaphor) can pretend not to be hurt when people use pronouns for them in contra to their preference
I understand you are making the claim that I am 'hurt' when people use pronouns in contra to my 'preference'. What makes you think that?
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
9,069
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
There is only one reason people have difficulty addressing a transwoman as "she" and engage in the related cultural genderizations ("treating" her like a "she", so to speak)... And that is the fear of the realization they are sexually attracted to her.
It's difficult to believe you actually believe this. But, if it really is what you believe, I will provide a falsification of your belief.

I have difficulty addressing transwomen as 'she', because pronouns, in humans as in all animals, refer to the sex of the organism, and transwomen are of the male sex.

It is entirely possible I have been sexually attracted to transwomen before and did not know it, since I have never, ever asked the gender identity of people I am sexually attracted to.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
7,634
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
This whole thing comes down to "please treat me the way I wish to be treated" by one party being said to communicate "please treat me the way you treat any (thing I wish to be treated as)." And the other side in generally bad or tainted faith interprets that as "treat me in this one specific arbitrary and just as I say it way", in my estimation to paint it as unreasonable.

The reality is that it is not unreasonable to ask people to for treatment they happily give half of all the strangers they meet.
 

TomC

Veteran Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
3,078
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
I have difficulty addressing transwomen as 'she', because pronouns, in humans as in all animals, refer to the sex of the organism, and transwomen are of the male sex.
It's difficult to believe that you actually believe this. But, if you insist, I'll explain why you're wrong.

Most animals don't think abstractly, or have feelings resulting from language usage. I commonly misname and misgender my dogs. I often call our little one "Belle", even though Belle died over two years ago. "Lady" doesn't care that I call her by her predecessor's name. She just wants to sit on my lap and be petted. Similarly, I sometimes call Abby by male pronouns because she looks and acts like her predecessor, Old Man Buddy. She doesn't care.

Here's the bottom line. Humans are animals, but people aren't exactly. So recognizing the impact of an abstraction on people, like gendered pronouns, is part of being a civilized person. Refusing to do so makes you more like an animal and less like a person. That's not something to feel superior about.
Tom
 

Rhea

Cyborg with a Tiara
Staff member
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
12,706
Location
Recluse
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
I have difficulty addressing transwomen as 'she', because pronouns, in humans as in all animals, refer to the sex of the organism, and transwomen are of the male sex.


Trying to figure out why you think about sex so much.

When I talk to people, I do not think about their genitals at all, unless I am planning to try to have sex with them, or, even more specifically, planning to try to procreate with them.

I don’t have any difficulty whatsover not thinking about sex when I talk to people.

<edit>
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
9,069
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
It's difficult to believe that you actually believe this. But, if you insist, I'll explain why you're wrong.
I'm not in the habit of claiming to believe things I don't believe.

Here's the bottom line. Humans are animals, but people aren't exactly. So recognizing the impact of an abstraction on people, like gendered pronouns, is part of being a civilized person. Refusing to do so makes you more like an animal and less like a person. That's not something to feel superior about.
You are begging the question: why do pronouns indicate 'gender' and not 'sex'?

But, let's say I am simply wrong in how I grew up understanding pronouns, and I am wrong about how pronouns have been used throughout history. You say that the impact of abstraction affects people's feelings, and the wrong type of abstraction hurts them. But how have you ordered whose feelings count?

If someone I've had a relationship with in the past (that is: an adult human male) came out as a transwoman, do you think it is obligate on me to follow all the prescriptions (and avoid all the proscriptions) of gender ideologists? When I speak about this person (an ex) to somebody who does not know them, must I use she/her? Must I avoid 'deadnaming'? Must I, in effect, give up my coherent understanding of myself as a homosexual man because of somebody else's gender identity? Is it fair to ask me to paint a public perception of bisexuality? I, who went from an effeminate pre-gay boy to a closeted teenager, to finally, at 20 years old that, having looked at gay porn for four years, accepting the ineluctable conclusion that I was, in fact, gay? Does the courage it took me to come out as a gay man on the most anxious night of my life to my mother - a deeply conservative Roman Catholic - mean nothing at all, since I am now, apparently, bisexual?

And if my feelings about my own sexuality count for nothing, why?
 

SigmatheZeta

Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2021
Messages
364
Gender
she/her
Basic Beliefs
Generally, I am rooted in both ancient Epicurean and ancient Pyrrhonist sentiments, although I am somewhat sympathetic toward the intentions behind ancient Cynicism.
I personally would like to get rid of gendered pronouns altogether. They are used for purposes of discrimination and hurt. They have no specific need, as the only time it actually matters, other descriptors are available.
Whenever I am talking about my cat, I refer to them as "they." I have some calculation in that fact: I am modeling the use of the idea. Humans are a lot like cats in that they learn primarily by imitation. If you want to establish a new behavior, then model it, and look cool doing it.
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
9,069
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
Trying to figure out why you think about sex so much.
I don't.
When I talk to people, I do not think about their genitals at all, unless I am planning to try to have sex with them, or, even more specifically, planning to try to procreate with them.
Good for you? I never think about the genitals of women I talk to, though I like to think about or imagine the genitals of some men that I talk to. But that is quite rare, too.
I don’t have any difficulty whatsover not thinking about sex when I talk to people.
Good for you? I don't 'think about' people's sex or their genitals when I'm talking to them, mostly, unless they are an adult human male to whom I am sexually attracted. Don't worry - I don't think you are in danger of my sexualising you.
[removed for consistency]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

SigmatheZeta

Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2021
Messages
364
Gender
she/her
Basic Beliefs
Generally, I am rooted in both ancient Epicurean and ancient Pyrrhonist sentiments, although I am somewhat sympathetic toward the intentions behind ancient Cynicism.
There is only one reason people have difficulty addressing a transwoman as "she" and engage in the related cultural genderizations ("treating" her like a "she", so to speak)... And that is the fear of the realization they are sexually attracted to her.
It's difficult to believe you actually believe this. But, if it really is what you believe, I will provide a falsification of your belief.

I have difficulty addressing transwomen as 'she', because pronouns, in humans as in all animals, refer to the sex of the organism, and transwomen are of the male sex.

It is entirely possible I have been sexually attracted to transwomen before and did not know it, since I have never, ever asked the gender identity of people I am sexually attracted to.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
9,069
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
There is only one reason people have difficulty addressing a transwoman as "she" and engage in the related cultural genderizations ("treating" her like a "she", so to speak)... And that is the fear of the realization they are sexually attracted to her.
It's difficult to believe you actually believe this. But, if it really is what you believe, I will provide a falsification of your belief.

I have difficulty addressing transwomen as 'she', because pronouns, in humans as in all animals, refer to the sex of the organism, and transwomen are of the male sex.

It is entirely possible I have been sexually attracted to transwomen before and did not know it, since I have never, ever asked the gender identity of people I am sexually attracted to.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
Hmm, what?
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
7,634
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
The difference here, and I am glad to point it out to you so you may never in ignorance make such a mistake again:

To afford a title of fealty is not the same as to afford a title you afford half of anyone, and which owes no fealty. I will have no gods or kings, and will not suffer any to live over me. Period. Should a king try to rule me I will kill them with all to my left and right who would seek such freedom.

So if you declare yourself as God emperor, I most certainly will treat you as I would any who would seek that title: not with my staff, but with my sword. And I do not think you would like to see a wizard make a sword.

Does that answer your question?

Very well, then.

As the rightful God-Emperor of Humanity, I hereby release you and anyone with whom you have ever interacted with or will ever interact with from any obligation of fealty to me, retroactively if necessary, unless they explicitly, of their own free will, and without coersion, pledge themselves as such.

You are all freemen as far as I am concerned.

All I ask is that you acknowledge and respect my stated gender (male human of superior genetics, intellect, and refinement) and my stated pronouns (M'lord/M'lord's) to the extent that you would do so for anyone else's declared gender identity. I ask this not as a god or a king, but merely as a person who has a monopoly on how I should be perceived and acknowledged, as do all people. Do you have any objections to doing so?

Edit: I related this latest interaction to my husband. While I imagine you are fine with me not treating you as I believe befits a god-emperor, he is absolutely extatic at the idea. He agrees to in fact use the full title as your entirety of pronoun.

If he wishes to re-pledge fealty to me, I have no objections to him doing so.

I think you could stand to benefit from watching an episode or two of The Owl House. Your tirade now that I think of it reminds me of a character on that show. It is, rather, the sort of treatment that you would receive at any rate for your behavior. Of course if you ever sought leverage to make your delusions of the meaning of such "fealty" into reality, then I would treat you as stated.

My point is as my last post states: I will afford to treat you as whatever interpretation of your person you wish. This will shape my initial interactions with you, and place a certain form of filter on me after that point.

Pray, though, that it does not mix with reality to a shade of "bad faith"; or to be any thing which nobody should be (an ASSHOLE). At that point I have a different label for you, and one you will have earned through word and deed, and one I have every right to shout off every mountain top should I believe you are actually worth that much effort; though this would, if I were too loud, give you more lovers for your rottenness alone, as sick as that would be. Enough, perhaps, to make you loved by fewest, and then as a secondary priority, hated by most.
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
9,069
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
The notion that a pronoun necessarily refers to the sex of a person instead of the gender is false.
But I am to accept without question that pronouns refer to gender identity and not sex, that I am mistaken about historical usage, that indeed I am mistaken about current usage among my friends and family? That my siblings chose pronouns (and names) for their children based on their children's 'gender identity' (or assumed gender identity) when they very clearly chose them based on sex?
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
7,634
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
I have difficulty addressing transwomen as 'she', because pronouns, in humans as in all animals, refer to the sex of the organism, and transwomen are of the male sex.
It's difficult to believe that you actually believe this. But, if you insist, I'll explain why you're wrong.

Most animals don't think abstractly, or have feelings resulting from language usage. I commonly misname and misgender my dogs. I often call our little one "Belle", even though Belle died over two years ago. "Lady" doesn't care that I call her by her predecessor's name. She just wants to sit on my lap and be petted. Similarly, I sometimes call Abby by male pronouns because she looks and acts like her predecessor, Old Man Buddy. She doesn't care.

Here's the bottom line. Humans are animals, but people aren't exactly. So recognizing the impact of an abstraction on people, like gendered pronouns, is part of being a civilized person. Refusing to do so makes you more like an animal and less like a person. That's not something to feel superior about.
Tom
YES! See, this is the crux of all my argument: that the request of language usage is a request to be stereotyped in some ways, not perhaps in expectations of, but treatment given.

I think one primary issue a lot of guys take with trans-women may also have to do with the fact that I don't think most men want to have to live with and around a greater number of women who could kick their ass for treating them the way they treat most women, and perhaps in part who have been trained by boys or some exposure to a masculine hormone monster, to be assertive.

Or with trans-men, call them out publicly as a peer for their awful behavior and see it as "women" or perhaps just "girls" depending on age of transition, have talked amongst themselves about it, so as to have empathy against what they are being shoved to be by toxic masculine culture.

I suppose in a lot of ways trans-exclusionist behavior from all angles may amount to a fear of confrontation of all of our worst behaviors we have been trained into as a form of "genderization".

It may have been useful when there were few people to have a binary of roles: it was hard to find someone that filled the other half, generally.

Today, this is not true. You do not need to be on "the hunter" or "the gatherer" exclusively anymore for everyone to have someone. In general, you just have to not be an asshole, or at least have assholes who like your asshole.

Or whatever your preference.

Oh, and you can't be toxic to one another.

Or whatever their preference.
 

SigmatheZeta

Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2021
Messages
364
Gender
she/her
Basic Beliefs
Generally, I am rooted in both ancient Epicurean and ancient Pyrrhonist sentiments, although I am somewhat sympathetic toward the intentions behind ancient Cynicism.
There is only one reason people have difficulty addressing a transwoman as "she" and engage in the related cultural genderizations ("treating" her like a "she", so to speak)... And that is the fear of the realization they are sexually attracted to her.
It's difficult to believe you actually believe this. But, if it really is what you believe, I will provide a falsification of your belief.

I have difficulty addressing transwomen as 'she', because pronouns, in humans as in all animals, refer to the sex of the organism, and transwomen are of the male sex.

It is entirely possible I have been sexually attracted to transwomen before and did not know it, since I have never, ever asked the gender identity of people I am sexually attracted to.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
Hmm, what?
Nothing.
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
9,069
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
I have difficulty addressing transwomen as 'she', because pronouns, in humans as in all animals, refer to the sex of the organism, and transwomen are of the male sex.
It's difficult to believe that you actually believe this. But, if you insist, I'll explain why you're wrong.

Most animals don't think abstractly, or have feelings resulting from language usage. I commonly misname and misgender my dogs. I often call our little one "Belle", even though Belle died over two years ago. "Lady" doesn't care that I call her by her predecessor's name. She just wants to sit on my lap and be petted. Similarly, I sometimes call Abby by male pronouns because she looks and acts like her predecessor, Old Man Buddy. She doesn't care.

Here's the bottom line. Humans are animals, but people aren't exactly. So recognizing the impact of an abstraction on people, like gendered pronouns, is part of being a civilized person. Refusing to do so makes you more like an animal and less like a person. That's not something to feel superior about.
Tom
YES! See, this is the crux of all my argument: that the request of language usage is a request to be stereotyped in some ways, not perhaps in expectations of, but treatment given.

I think one primary issue a lot of guys take with trans-women may also have to do with the fact that I don't think most men want to have to live with and around a greater number of women who could kick their ass for treating them the way they treat most women, and perhaps in part who have been trained by boys or some exposure to a masculine hormone monster, to be assertive.
So, let's get a tally here about why some men do not believe transwomen to be women:

i) They are 'afraid' of being sexually attracted to transwomen. I really don't understand how this one works, if I'm honest, as it seems to me heterosexual men would be put more at ease if they were sexually attracted to a transwoman and society accepted that transwoman as a woman for all purposes.

ii) They are afraid that transwomen will use their male strength to physically assault them, and it would be humiliating(?) to be physically assaulted by a woman, so those transwomen are actually men(?)
 

SigmatheZeta

Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2021
Messages
364
Gender
she/her
Basic Beliefs
Generally, I am rooted in both ancient Epicurean and ancient Pyrrhonist sentiments, although I am somewhat sympathetic toward the intentions behind ancient Cynicism.
The difference here, and I am glad to point it out to you so you may never in ignorance make such a mistake again:

To afford a title of fealty is not the same as to afford a title you afford half of anyone, and which owes no fealty. I will have no gods or kings, and will not suffer any to live over me. Period. Should a king try to rule me I will kill them with all to my left and right who would seek such freedom.

So if you declare yourself as God emperor, I most certainly will treat you as I would any who would seek that title: not with my staff, but with my sword. And I do not think you would like to see a wizard make a sword.

Does that answer your question?

Very well, then.

As the rightful God-Emperor of Humanity, I hereby release you and anyone with whom you have ever interacted with or will ever interact with from any obligation of fealty to me, retroactively if necessary, unless they explicitly, of their own free will, and without coersion, pledge themselves as such.

You are all freemen as far as I am concerned.

All I ask is that you acknowledge and respect my stated gender (male human of superior genetics, intellect, and refinement) and my stated pronouns (M'lord/M'lord's) to the extent that you would do so for anyone else's declared gender identity. I ask this not as a god or a king, but merely as a person who has a monopoly on how I should be perceived and acknowledged, as do all people. Do you have any objections to doing so?

Edit: I related this latest interaction to my husband. While I imagine you are fine with me not treating you as I believe befits a god-emperor, he is absolutely extatic at the idea. He agrees to in fact use the full title as your entirety of pronoun.

If he wishes to re-pledge fealty to me, I have no objections to him doing so.
When I am not sure what to call somebody, I just use "they." In fact, I sometimes use "they" even if I do know somebody's gender identity. I honestly might into the habit of using it with everybody.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
7,634
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
The difference here, and I am glad to point it out to you so you may never in ignorance make such a mistake again:

To afford a title of fealty is not the same as to afford a title you afford half of anyone, and which owes no fealty. I will have no gods or kings, and will not suffer any to live over me. Period. Should a king try to rule me I will kill them with all to my left and right who would seek such freedom.

So if you declare yourself as God emperor, I most certainly will treat you as I would any who would seek that title: not with my staff, but with my sword. And I do not think you would like to see a wizard make a sword.

Does that answer your question?

Very well, then.

As the rightful God-Emperor of Humanity, I hereby release you and anyone with whom you have ever interacted with or will ever interact with from any obligation of fealty to me, retroactively if necessary, unless they explicitly, of their own free will, and without coersion, pledge themselves as such.

You are all freemen as far as I am concerned.

All I ask is that you acknowledge and respect my stated gender (male human of superior genetics, intellect, and refinement) and my stated pronouns (M'lord/M'lord's) to the extent that you would do so for anyone else's declared gender identity. I ask this not as a god or a king, but merely as a person who has a monopoly on how I should be perceived and acknowledged, as do all people. Do you have any objections to doing so?

Edit: I related this latest interaction to my husband. While I imagine you are fine with me not treating you as I believe befits a god-emperor, he is absolutely extatic at the idea. He agrees to in fact use the full title as your entirety of pronoun.

If he wishes to re-pledge fealty to me, I have no objections to him doing so.
When I am not sure what to call somebody, I just use "they." In fact, I sometimes use "they" even if I do know somebody's gender identity. I honestly might into the habit of using it with everybody.
I did that with metaphor for a while. A rather large tantrum was thrown, and I will generally now afford more use of masculine pronouns as the need may arise.

Sometimes I admit it is a little bit enjoyable to not have to make mention of gender through the use of pronouns, nor address it at all when it is within one's power to do, excepting when that is the subject.

For instance, rarely do I have to tell anyone how I would wish to be treated. They will treat me exactly as they would treat someone in a long, nice garment, wearing a bespoke hat, carrying a fancy stick that is built without a rubber foot that he probably doesn't need for walking, and clearly not a hobo.

This has in my experience evoked just the right balance of respect, wariness, and fear people generally bestow on people capable of designing great things, working with the ether that is real, teaching sand how to think, and playing with the waves of the universe to see new sights and wonders as the universe may offer, and otherwise studying all of the metaphysical.

It's just most wizards were born before our first age of magic, when the truth was rare, the stakes high, and the output miniscule.
 

SigmatheZeta

Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2021
Messages
364
Gender
she/her
Basic Beliefs
Generally, I am rooted in both ancient Epicurean and ancient Pyrrhonist sentiments, although I am somewhat sympathetic toward the intentions behind ancient Cynicism.
The difference here, and I am glad to point it out to you so you may never in ignorance make such a mistake again:

To afford a title of fealty is not the same as to afford a title you afford half of anyone, and which owes no fealty. I will have no gods or kings, and will not suffer any to live over me. Period. Should a king try to rule me I will kill them with all to my left and right who would seek such freedom.

So if you declare yourself as God emperor, I most certainly will treat you as I would any who would seek that title: not with my staff, but with my sword. And I do not think you would like to see a wizard make a sword.

Does that answer your question?

Very well, then.

As the rightful God-Emperor of Humanity, I hereby release you and anyone with whom you have ever interacted with or will ever interact with from any obligation of fealty to me, retroactively if necessary, unless they explicitly, of their own free will, and without coersion, pledge themselves as such.

You are all freemen as far as I am concerned.

All I ask is that you acknowledge and respect my stated gender (male human of superior genetics, intellect, and refinement) and my stated pronouns (M'lord/M'lord's) to the extent that you would do so for anyone else's declared gender identity. I ask this not as a god or a king, but merely as a person who has a monopoly on how I should be perceived and acknowledged, as do all people. Do you have any objections to doing so?

Edit: I related this latest interaction to my husband. While I imagine you are fine with me not treating you as I believe befits a god-emperor, he is absolutely extatic at the idea. He agrees to in fact use the full title as your entirety of pronoun.

If he wishes to re-pledge fealty to me, I have no objections to him doing so.
When I am not sure what to call somebody, I just use "they." In fact, I sometimes use "they" even if I do know somebody's gender identity. I honestly might into the habit of using it with everybody.
I did that with metaphor for a while. A rather large tantrum was thrown, and I will generally now afford more use of masculine pronouns as the need may arise.

Sometimes I admit it is a little bit enjoyable to not have to make mention of gender through the use of pronouns, nor address it at all when it is within one's power to do, excepting when that is the subject.

For instance, rarely do I have to tell anyone how I would wish to be treated. They will treat me exactly as they would treat someone in a long, nice garment, wearing a bespoke hat, carrying a fancy stick that is built without a rubber foot that he probably doesn't need for walking, and clearly not a hobo.

This has in my experience evoked just the right balance of respect, wariness, and fear people generally bestow on people capable of designing great things, working with the ether that is real, teaching sand how to think, and playing with the waves of the universe to see new sights and wonders as the universe may offer, and otherwise studying all of the metaphysical.

It's just most wizards were born before our first age of magic, when the truth was rare, the stakes high, and the output miniscule.
I am more of a dragon, but I don't see it as something that most people are obligated to take seriously. It's more of a meditation on the nature of my relationship with the human race.

My gender is something I can prove objectively.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
20,229
Location
Minnesota
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
The notion that a pronoun necessarily refers to the sex of a person instead of the gender is false.
But I am to accept without question that pronouns refer to gender identity and not sex, that I am mistaken about historical usage, that indeed I am mistaken about current usage among my friends and family? That my siblings chose pronouns (and names) for their children based on their children's 'gender identity' (or assumed gender identity) when they very clearly chose them based on sex?
A pronoun can refer to gender or to sex. It really is that simple despite yiur effirts to make it difficult.
 

SigmatheZeta

Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2021
Messages
364
Gender
she/her
Basic Beliefs
Generally, I am rooted in both ancient Epicurean and ancient Pyrrhonist sentiments, although I am somewhat sympathetic toward the intentions behind ancient Cynicism.

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
3,915
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
Another question for readers interested in a serious discussion. Suppose I say "the US already had women presidents, because D. Trump, G.W. Bush, B. Obama and J. Biden are all women."

Is there an objective fact of the matter as to whether my assertion is true?
Yes.


Thank you. So, the word "woman" ascribes some properties to an entity, in general, and this is independent of what the person in question thinks. My aim is to discuss what properties those are.

Suppose hypothetically that those people actually have some typical female-like mental properties, like - say - preferring to play with dolls over trucks, things like that. They also have penises, testicles, no vagina, uterus, or ovaries, and also typical male-like mental properties: they experience having a penis, they have a mind that formed experiencing that for decades, and no experience of having a vagina, etc. Would you say that under that hypothesis, my claim is true in 2021 American English? What about 1992, and 1972?
No.
ETA: I seriously dislike the new forum software. :(
Great, so none of them would be a woman. Can you point to any property of transwomen who would make them women, but not any of the people I mentioned in the scenario as given?
 

SigmatheZeta

Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2021
Messages
364
Gender
she/her
Basic Beliefs
Generally, I am rooted in both ancient Epicurean and ancient Pyrrhonist sentiments, although I am somewhat sympathetic toward the intentions behind ancient Cynicism.
The notion that a pronoun necessarily refers to the sex of a person instead of the gender is false.
But I am to accept without question that pronouns refer to gender identity and not sex, that I am mistaken about historical usage, that indeed I am mistaken about current usage among my friends and family? That my siblings chose pronouns (and names) for their children based on their children's 'gender identity' (or assumed gender identity) when they very clearly chose them based on sex?
A pronoun can refer to gender or to sex. It really is that simple despite yiur effirts to make it difficult.
I am sticking with the theory that someone on social media pissed him off, at some point.

The toxic callout culture has made life very difficult for us transgender people that prefer to just mind our own business and not bother anybody.
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
3,915
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
Politesse said:
You mean without asking me? No, I wouldn't say there was any way to objectively tell a Presbyterian from a non-Presbyterian without asking them. Ultimately, you must be the judge of the social labels you do or do not accept, or at least, your testimony is one of the data points that should always be considered as part of the whole.
Of course without asking you!

And you misunderstand the question. I am not asking whether, without asking you, I would have a way of telling whether you are a Presbyterian. I am asking you whether there is an objective fact of the matter as to whether you are a Presbyterian. And yes, your testimony when available is one of the pieces of evidence to take into consideration. But whether there is an objective fact of the matter (there is) does not depend on whether you give testimony. You are mixing epistemology and ontology. To give you an example: there is an objective fact of the matter as to whether Julius Caesar ate eggs on 12-12-47 BCE, even if we have no way of telling which one it is.


Politesse said:
May we switch this to a pure hypothetical, please? I'm not comfortable discussing a real human being like they are an inanimate test subject in a philosophy lab.
First, I am not treating a human being like an inanimate test subject in a sense that would make it wrong. It would be wrong to do so if someone were not to consider the potential consequences for that person (e.g., experimenting on them), etc. I am not doing that. I have no obligation not to talk about Elliot Page.

Second, it is difficult to do without actual examples, as I need to fix the referent. But I will try. Here goes:

Suppose a human - say, Alex - identifies as a man. Alex is 25, has a vagina, uterus, ovaries, etc., no penis, balls, etc. Alex has a mind that is like that typical of human females in the following respects.

1. Alex has experienced having a vagina all her life. Alex experienced puberty, a period, etc. And has the mind that has formed as a result.
2. Alex still experiences having a vagina, a period, etc.
3. Alex has preferences involving her vagina.
4. Alex has no experiences whatsoever involving a penis. Or testicles. Etc.


Alex also has ave some typical male-like mental properties too. For example, let us say Alex is generally attracted to humans with vaginas, breasts, female secondary sexual traits, etc., not with penises, testicles, etc.

Then let me ask you.

a. In 1972 American English, is Alex a woman? A man? Neither? There is no fact of the matter? Other?
b. In 1992 American English, is Alex a woman? A man? Neither? There is no fact of the matter? Other?
c. In 2021 American English, is Alex a woman? A man? Neither? There is no fact of the matter? Other?

Politesse said:
That isn't really the same statement. "A woman had a daughter in 1996" could be taken in a lot of ways, some of which could be objectively verified.
There was not a single statement, but some alternatives. Since you did not give a straight answer, I tried a slight variant. And it's not "A woman". I identified her accurately. I also identified accurately who the daughter/not a daughter was. Also, it is not about verifying anything. But regardless, I just switched to a purely hypothetical, at you wanted.

Politesse said:
If the question, the real statement in dispute, is "This individual was a girl in 1996", that's not really something anyone could verify "objectively".
The statement in dispute was whether this individual was a girl in the 1996-meaning of the word 'girl'. And it is not about whether anyone can verify it - that is a different matter.
But I just went with the pure hypothetical, so let us see how you respond.
I am a scientist to the core, and generally prefer well-considered epistemology as the best path to an ontological conclusion, as opposed to groundless bluster and conjecture. This is unlikely to change. I don't believe there is some sacred inviolable Truth to human-produced categorizations like gender status or religious factions, no. Science can uncover facts, it can rule out non-facts. It can't tell you what a person should be, or what they should be allowed to call themselves. And only asshole humans do that kind of nonsense to each other.
While it is frustrating that you think your reply actually presents an objection to my post, it is more so that you misrepresent what I said. While I think science potentially can study what humans should do (after all, morality is something to do with monkey brains, not something that came from above), my post had zero to do with that (which would be a matter for another discussion, not this one).

At any rate, clearly you do not want to engage (because you do not understand what the discussion is about, but still you do not want to engage), so I will leave it at that, and reply to you again if you choose to reply to any of my posts in a relevant manner.
 

Rhea

Cyborg with a Tiara
Staff member
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
12,706
Location
Recluse
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
Thread locked for moderation discussion
 

Rhea

Cyborg with a Tiara
Staff member
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
12,706
Location
Recluse
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
The moderation team is closing this thread for departing from productive discussion. This is a topic that affects members of our community and the continuously repeated “just asking questions” that have already been answered many times in the thread, as well as the declarations of what your fellow posters are or aren’t, does not serve the goal of this forum; meaningful discussion of topics in a community where everyone can feel welcome.

The topic is supported, but sometimes a thread devolves into one way communication (declaring positions, provoking, demeaning) instead of listening and discussing. It may include posters continually asking the same question again and again that has already been answered, while refusing to acknowledge or discuss the answers that were given. When that happens, the thread is closed. Take some time to remember, before another thread is started, that the objective is to discuss in good faith.

Thread Closed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom