Can We Discuss Sex & Gender / Transgender People?

[Politesse]

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]

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]

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.



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

 

[Generation55]

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]

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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"?

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.

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.

 

[Jarhyn]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Metaphor]

How should a man be treated? How should a woman be treated?

I have a different question: how should a wizard be treated?