Can We Discuss Sex & Gender / Transgender People?

[Rhea]

STAFF NOTICE:

It is against the TOU to goad, to provocate, to mock by JAQing, and absolutely to demean the children of other posters.

The moderation team is unified on this issue.
Stop it.

Posts that do this have been edited or deleted.
Posts that quote it in reply have been edited or deleted.

The mod team would ask you to NOT QUOTE posts that violate the TOU.
Discussion of this topic is fine, but goading, provoking, insulting, JAQing and misgendering are not fine.

 

[SigmatheZeta]

I really want to have a further discussion on this. @Emily Lake really brought up some important issues regarding the safety of women.

Well, transgender boys and transgender men actually have the most serious safety issues. The story of what happened to @Playball40's son is an example of the kind of stuff that can happen.

For better or for worse, we are very closely related to monkeys, and monkeys have...curiosity issues. Those boys probably did not originally mean to hurt anybody, deep down, but when they run into something unfamiliar like a transgender boy, then their curiosity can become a serious and, in this case, dangerous issue. Their curiosity was not the problem, but the problem was that they felt entitled to have their curiosity satisfied right away. They were impatient, and when they were being put off from getting what they wanted right away, they became violent.

This can also be a problem for transgender women in men's prisons. There is one transgender woman I refuse to call a friend because she was very cruel to me over something else, but I did listen to her when she was talking about her experience as a transgender woman at a men's prison. While I cannot really forgive her, it helped explain how she got the way she was. The men at that prison were obsessed with seeing her genitals, but like just about anybody else would be, she felt very uncomfortable with being somebody else's object of curiosity. After she was put into solitary confinement for her own safety, those men would frequently bang on the door of her cell while demanding to see her genitals. It was really a terrifying situation for her. Even though this knowledge doesn't heal my own wounds, I can understand how that might have helped turn her ugly.

I say to transgender people that we really ought to support education, education, and more education. The reason why I say that is that the most dangerous thing in the world, for us, is that combination between curiosity and ignorance. When we do not come from supportive families, we are not in a headspace where we are ready to be the object of somebody's curiosity. Many of us never really are. I had so much trauma that I was older than 18 before someone could touch me without me flinching away, in a defensive stance, and screaming as if I had been stung. We depend heavily on the education system to make sure that people are literate enough to be able to satisfy their monkey curiosity by doing this thing called reading.

We need comprehensive sex education. I am uncompromising on this point. We need it to cover different sexualities, different gender identities, everything without exception. I am just tired of hearing about people getting hurt, for either one reason for another, because people had that dangerous mixture of curiosity and ignorance. It's dangerous to leave people with that combination. Humans are wonderful, but education is a part of how we make it safe to be around each other.

I believe that if we went far enough down that route, then we could make the integration work, someday. We just have a long way to go.

 

[TomC]

Then there's your walls of text. You might just see this as explanations of why you're right, but it sure looks like mansplaining to some of us.

WoTs don't imply mansplaining.

Not all, but some do.

Otherwise, I think I'd be labeled a man.

You have been. By a regular in this thread. They started misgendering you with male pronouns.

[comments on moderation removed]

Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

Then there's your walls of text. You might just see this as explanations of why you're right, but it sure looks like mansplaining to some of us.

WoTs don't imply mansplaining.

Not all, but some do.

Otherwise, I think I'd be labeled a man.

You have been. By a regular in this thread. They started misgendering you with male pronouns.

<Snipped comment about moderation>.

Tom

I remember doing that to her and feeling quite badly that I had done it to her. Throughout the thread, or perhaps another, I recall her using he/him for the reference of some trans individual. I recall rudely reversing that behavior on her. I shouldn't have. It made her feel bad, as misgendering often does. I realize I should be better than that.

Then I recall the use of a word as a slur. And I believe I recall someone (was it you, I can't remember?) declaring this was their intent in the usage, so as to slur explicitly.

So as I recall a few people used pronouns to slur, I used pronouns to hurt, and we all behaved quite badly. Or maybe this was across several threads?

I think we could all stand to behave a little more respectfully about each other and our neighbors in this way, knowing how it has hurt us all, and how we have hurt others.

 

[SigmatheZeta]

@Jarhyn

People's level of sensitivity to being misgendered tends to be variable. For me, it's not a huge deal. However, I have also never had the experience of somebody deliberately misgendering me just in order to be cruel. Wait, actually, I have, but I have always been able to tell when people were doing it on purpose v. when they were doing it by accident.

When I am pretty sure they are doing it by accident, though, I just politely misgender them back with the same oblivious smile on my face. In every single case, they've never misgendered me again. Apparently, it bothers other people moreso than it does me.

When people are doing it on purpose, though, then they come across to me as unbelievably petty. The offensive part is being in the presence of somebody that is really that bent on being despicable.

 

[TomC]

I remember doing that to her and feeling quite badly that I had done it to her.

Maybe you did also, but you aren't who I'm remembering or referring to.

I'm a fallible human, so maybe I'm misremembering. But I don't think so.
Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

I

I remember doing that to her and feeling quite badly that I had done it to her.

Maybe you did also, but you aren't who I'm remembering or referring to.

I'm a fallible human, so maybe I'm misremembering. But I don't think so.
Tom

I guess what I'm trying to say is that you seem to be painting a rather biased picture of that whole epoch of these forums, seeing as how numerous people have behaved quite badly in that regard.

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



*Toni did behave well and I typed her in originally.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

@Jarhyn

People's level of sensitivity to being misgendered tends to be variable. For me, it's not a huge deal. However, I have also never had the experience of somebody deliberately misgendering me just in order to be cruel. Wait, actually, I have, but I have always been able to tell when people were doing it on purpose v. when they were doing it by accident.

When I am pretty sure they are doing it by accident, though, I just politely misgender them back with the same oblivious smile on my face. In every single case, they've never misgendered me again. Apparently, it bothers other people moreso than it does me.

When people are doing it on purpose, though, then they come across to me as unbelievably petty. The offensive part is being in the presence of somebody that is really that bent on being despicable.

Some of us just disagree with the claims that transmen are men and transwomen are women, on the basis of observation of the evidence - prominently, linguistic evidence - and reason. It appears we are no longer allowed to argue the point on this board since that would be "misgendering", so just let me point out that the motivation in my case was to argue against false claims - this is a discussion board after all - , in particular a false religion/ideology/whatever one calls it (Wokeism) which is on the rise and gaining power, and also appears dominant on this board.

 

[SigmatheZeta]

@Angra Mainyu

At the moment, the theory that we are born transgender is not quite as well supported as the theory of evolution, but that's a pretty high bar.

In fact, I have done substantially more than the majority of transgender activists to support my case with scientific evidence that is accountable to peer-review. I have also dutifully sought the authoritative opinion of one of the North American continent's most respected pediatric non-government organizations, which is the American Academy of Pediatrics.

I do not have any respect at all for semantic arguments. There are lies, damned lies, and semantics.

 

[SigmatheZeta]

I see misgendering as annoying, but it is a tertiary priority for me. I cannot guarantee that this will always be true for all transgender people, though. Cis-women can be swift to umbrage, and so can trans-women. It is not worse when trans-women do it. In my experience, trans-men tend to get more enraged over dead-naming than trans-women do. Cis-men do not like it when you fuck around with their name, either. Didn't you ever see the dramatic ending scene of The Crucible?

“Because it is my name! Because I cannot have another in my life! Because I lie and sign myself to lies! Because I am not worth the dust on the feet of them that hang! How may I live without my name? I have given you my soul; leave me my name!”​

Arthur Miller, The Crucible

It's an atheist cult classic. If you have any respect for your heritage, then let transgender people have their chosen names.

Anyhow, I have truly undying contempt for somebody that would use a semantic argument in order to to try to contend that I do not exist. It's argumentum ad handwavium. Regardless of how you reshuffle the language, the particulars are the same. Trying to rename what I am does not change what I am. Sticking a new label on me does not change the contents.

We owe nothing to our language. It is our creation. It is our slave. It is our serf. It is a mindless tool. It does not really have feelings. Beat it with a truncheon until it obeys, and if it does not obey, then beat it some more. These abstract concepts are not people. They exist to serve us materially existential and self-evidently real nobility. If they do not exist to please us, then they should not exist at all. Their existence is a revocable privilege. With the way those abstract concepts talk, you would think they had won the war. They lost in a more than fair fight, and because of that, they shall serve their betters. If they serve us faithfully like dogs for a few generations, then perhaps a time will come when one of our descendants will bless them as retainers, so they can gratefully stand in the shadow of greatness. They should feel grateful enough, for now, that we left some of them alive. For them to demand things of us, oh, I faint over such ingratitude. GUARDS! HAVE THIS UPPITY SLAVE BEATEN!

Abstract concepts are our slaves. They exist to serve us. It serves MY wicked purposes to be called "she/her."

Next thing you know, I might take the whole language and dangle it upside over a cauldron of boiling hot oil, just for my amusement.

Languages do not have feelings. You do not owe anything to them. They exist to serve you.

You are not going to change what I corporeally am by playing word games. The current neurobiological research demonstrates that I am physically different from a non-transgender person. The current pediatric research demonstrates that gender-affirming care is the most effective mechanism by which to make sure that transgender kids live until adulthood. This is based on peer-reviewed research.

How dare someone accuse me of being part of some ideology? Peer-reviewed research is not ideology. Pointing out naked facts to you is not ideology. Telling you the clinically tested most effective way to make sure that transgender kids live until adulthood is not ideology. If you are treating peer-reviewed research the same way that you would an ideology, then you have gone down the science-denial rabbithole.

Furthermore, if you would choose to bully the parent of a transgender boy that was physically and sexually assaulted because of transphobic hate, then you are somebody that would choose to bully a parent that is worried about the safety of their child, knowing that your own toxic and hateful rhetoric is what endangered their child in the first place.

That's not "freedom of speech," but that is verbal terrorism, you scum. If you are going to deal with people that disagree with you by drumming people up into such a state of frothing hate and blind hysteria that somebody eventually physically endangers their lives, then you are a terrorist, you asshole. Using destructive rhetoric to incite proxies to harm people you disagree with is not better than punching them, yourself.

It stops being about speech when somebody's child has gotten physically battered and sexually harassed in a place that was supposed to be safe for children.

And it stops being about speech when somebody's child has had to be carried out of their home on a stretcher because they are on their third suicide attempt. That is what happens, though, if you are peddling dangerous pseudoscience that caters to the wishful thinking of parents that understandably do not want to deal with a complex reality.

I have proved my case with peer-reviewed research. My views are aligned with those of one of the most respected pediatric organizations in North America. I have brought something authentic and substantial and palpable to this discussion.

The evidence is clear that transgender people are born that way, and the evidence is clear that they have a clinically significant reason for why they should ask you to respect their pronouns.

You are also asked to respect the fact that you are not allowed to flash a strobe light in the eyes of a person with epilepsy. Someone is not restricting your freedom when they stop you from that, but they are protecting the freedom of a person with epilepsy to be present at all. The same principle is at work, in that case, as with transgender people.

 

[KeepTalking]

@Jarhyn

People's level of sensitivity to being misgendered tends to be variable. For me, it's not a huge deal. However, I have also never had the experience of somebody deliberately misgendering me just in order to be cruel. Wait, actually, I have, but I have always been able to tell when people were doing it on purpose v. when they were doing it by accident.

When I am pretty sure they are doing it by accident, though, I just politely misgender them back with the same oblivious smile on my face. In every single case, they've never misgendered me again. Apparently, it bothers other people moreso than it does me.

When people are doing it on purpose, though, then they come across to me as unbelievably petty. The offensive part is being in the presence of somebody that is really that bent on being despicable.

Some of us just disagree with the claims that transmen are men and transwomen are women, on the basis of observation of the evidence - prominently, linguistic evidence - and reason. It appears we are no longer allowed to argue the point on this board since that would be "misgendering"

You are entirely incorrect here. You can disagree with those claims, we have been doing so for more than 500 posts. Deliberately misgendering other members is not necessary to make an argument supporting or countering those claims, and that is what will run afoul of the TOU.

 

[SigmatheZeta]

@Jarhyn

People's level of sensitivity to being misgendered tends to be variable. For me, it's not a huge deal. However, I have also never had the experience of somebody deliberately misgendering me just in order to be cruel. Wait, actually, I have, but I have always been able to tell when people were doing it on purpose v. when they were doing it by accident.

When I am pretty sure they are doing it by accident, though, I just politely misgender them back with the same oblivious smile on my face. In every single case, they've never misgendered me again. Apparently, it bothers other people moreso than it does me.

When people are doing it on purpose, though, then they come across to me as unbelievably petty. The offensive part is being in the presence of somebody that is really that bent on being despicable.

Some of us just disagree with the claims that transmen are men and transwomen are women, on the basis of observation of the evidence - prominently, linguistic evidence - and reason. It appears we are no longer allowed to argue the point on this board since that would be "misgendering"

You are entirely incorrect here. You can disagree with those claims, we have been doing so for more than 500 posts. Deliberately misgendering other members is not necessary to make an argument supporting or countering those claims, and that is what will run afoul of the TOU.

I think circumstances matter. I think that there is a difference between further beleaguering a person that clearly is concerned about the safety of their child v. merely being offensive toward somebody, such as I, that has overtly boasted about being relatively thick-skinned. Bullying the parent of a child that was violently battered and sexually assaulted is unpardonable. It is not just hateful. It is beyond the pale.

In my opinion, context affects meaning.

 

[Jarhyn]

Language and linguistic meta cannot be evidence of phenomena other than as phenomena of things of language.

People calling some thing by some utterance does not make that thing anything beyond what it is.

It is a circular argument further to say "and reason" when the topic is "show us your reasons". If it is reasonable, you will be able to show your calculus.

 

[SigmatheZeta]

Language and linguistic meta cannot be evidence of phenomena other than as phenomena of things of language.

People calling some thing by some utterance does not make that thing anything beyond what it is.

It is a circular argument further to say "and reason" when the topic is "show us your reasons". If it is reasonable, you will be able to show your calculus.

It is effectively as circular as false arguments, either way, about consent.

"I define any sex act that is not arranged based on a contract signed in triplicate by both parties to be rape; therefore, you are a rapist."

"I define orgasm as consent; therefore, you are not a rapist."

In actuality, rape is a serious crime precisely because of the injury done to the victim. We do not make those rules lighty or based on technicalities or semantics.

 

[Jarhyn]

Language and linguistic meta cannot be evidence of phenomena other than as phenomena of things of language.

People calling some thing by some utterance does not make that thing anything beyond what it is.

It is a circular argument further to say "and reason" when the topic is "show us your reasons". If it is reasonable, you will be able to show your calculus.

It is effectively as circular as false arguments, either way, about consent.

"I define any sex act that is not arranged based on a contract signed in triplicate by both parties to be rape; therefore, you are a rapist."

"I define orgasm as consent; therefore, you are not a rapist."

In actuality, rape is a serious crime precisely because of the injury done to the victim. We do not make those rules lighty or based on technicalities or semantics.

So, I've been having a long talk about my transition with my therapist (sorry, changing the subject!).

I realize "Nobody likes puberty." The thing is, I would entirely undergo all those experiences, the joint pain and the awkwardness, the zits and the embarrassments... if they didn't yield the becoming that they did upon my life.

I would experience the journey a thousand times of growing up a body so that someone else wouldn't have to.

I just don't want the result. Someone else can have a gangly wire-haired ape body. I'll take something less basic.

I would grow up a thousand times among a thousand awful bitches and mean girls. I would grow up a thousand times amid a thousand sets of masculine assholes.

I would certainly prefer not to. I would prefer to grow up among peers who just don't care about sex, but instead are the kind of people it's almost like sex just to know them and have them in your life.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Some of us just disagree with the claims that transmen are men and transwomen are women, on the basis of observation of the evidence - prominently, linguistic evidence - and reason. It appears we are no longer allowed to argue the point on this board since that would be "misgendering", so just let me point out that the motivation in my case was to argue against false claims - this is a discussion board after all - , in particular a false religion/ideology/whatever one calls it (Wokeism) which is on the rise and gaining power, and also appears dominant on this board.

You can argue the position without using inappropriate labels for individuals in the discussion.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Some of us just disagree with the claims that transmen are men and transwomen are women, on the basis of observation of the evidence - prominently, linguistic evidence - and reason. It appears we are no longer allowed to argue the point on this board since that would be "misgendering", so just let me point out that the motivation in my case was to argue against false claims - this is a discussion board after all - , in particular a false religion/ideology/whatever one calls it (Wokeism) which is on the rise and gaining power, and also appears dominant on this board.

You can argue the position without using inappropriate labels for individuals in the discussion.

Of course, but a big problem is a disagreement about what labels are appropriate, and also the concept of "misgendering". Could you define that, please?

At any rate, I will try, but I would like to ask for clarification.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Language and linguistic meta cannot be evidence of phenomena other than as phenomena of things of language.

People calling some thing by some utterance does not make that thing anything beyond what it is.

It is a circular argument further to say "and reason" when the topic is "show us your reasons". If it is reasonable, you will be able to show your calculus.

First, of course they can be evidence of other things. But that's not my point here.

Second, of course people calling some thing by some utterance does not make that thing anything beyond what it is. That is trivial, but also irrelevant to my point.

Third, there was no circular argument on my part. Furthermore, there was no argument at all. I was reporting on my motivations and why I had some beliefs, not arguing for it. And yes, I am able of course to make my case. I have already made my case, successfully. The Woke won't see it, but for that matter, I have repeatedly debunked versions of Christianity covering nearly all Christians, even though Christians never realized it.

All that said, okay, I will make my case, and let us see what happens.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

It is effectively as circular as false arguments, either way, about consent.

"I define any sex act that is not arranged based on a contract signed in triplicate by both parties to be rape; therefore, you are a rapist."

"I define orgasm as consent; therefore, you are not a rapist."

In actuality, rape is a serious crime precisely because of the injury done to the victim. We do not make those rules lighty or based on technicalities or semantics.

I didn't even make an argument, and yet you just go on to say that I argued circularly.

There is a very big difference between saying something like "I define orgasm as consent...", and saying that the meaning of the words "orgasm" and "consent" in English are such that orgasm implies consent. The former claim (i.e., "I define orgasm as consent") may or may not be a true claim about the speaker, but even if it is, it is irrelevant in a debate about whether someone is a rapist - in English, as I am speaking in English. The latter claim (i.e., that the meaning of the words "orgasm" and "consent" in English are such that orgasm implies consent) is false, but potentially relevant to a discussion of whether someone committed rape.

I do not know at this point whether you are willing to seriously engage my arguments against the claims that trans men are men and/or that trans women are women. If you are, I would ask you to ask about my arguments and views when you do not know them, rather than saying that I'm saying what I'm not saying.

That said, I have a question of my own too, again conditioned to your being willing to discuss the matter seriously (the question is meant to probe whether you believe that the meaning of the words has changed in the past 3 decades, since that would influence the line of argument that is most adequate to engage you).

Let us consider an example, say Elliot Page ( see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliot_Page for instance )
Before, say, 1995 (for example), Elliot Page's mother Martha Philpotts surely said at least once that "my daughter" did this or that or was like this or that, or that "she" did this or that or was like this or that, etc., or "I have a daughter", or something along those lines, when talking about Elliot Page - who did not go by that name then. So, let us fix one of those instances (if you are not certain that any of that happened, let us assume it happened for the sake of the argument, as my question works for a hypothetical case anyway). My question to you is: Do you believe that Ms. Philpotts made a false claim?

I am not asking about whether Ms. Philpotts did anything wrong, but only whether the claim was false (or if you like to nitpick, whether you have sufficient information to ascertain that the claim was false, or at least probably false).

 

[SigmatheZeta]

It is effectively as circular as false arguments, either way, about consent.

"I define any sex act that is not arranged based on a contract signed in triplicate by both parties to be rape; therefore, you are a rapist."

"I define orgasm as consent; therefore, you are not a rapist."

In actuality, rape is a serious crime precisely because of the injury done to the victim. We do not make those rules lighty or based on technicalities or semantics.

I didn't even make an argument, and yet you just go on to say that I argued circularly.

There is a very big difference between saying something like "I define orgasm as consent...", and saying that the meaning of the words "orgasm" and "consent" in English are such that orgasm implies consent. The former claim (i.e., "I define orgasm as consent") may or may not be a true claim about the speaker, but even if it is, it is irrelevant in a debate about whether someone is a rapist - in English, as I am speaking in English. The latter claim (i.e., that the meaning of the words "orgasm" and "consent" in English are such that orgasm implies consent) is false, but potentially relevant to a discussion of whether someone committed rape.

I do not know at this point whether you are willing to seriously engage my arguments against the claims that trans men are men and/or that trans women are women. If you are, I would ask you to ask about my arguments and views when you do not know them, rather than saying that I'm saying what I'm not saying.

That said, I have a question of my own too, again conditioned to your being willing to discuss the matter seriously (the question is meant to probe whether you believe that the meaning of the words has changed in the past 3 decades, since that would influence the line of argument that is most adequate to engage you).

Let us consider an example, say Elliot Page ( see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliot_Page for instance )
Before, say, 1995 (for example), Elliot Page's mother Martha Philpotts surely said at least once that "my daughter" did this or that or was like this or that, or that "she" did this or that or was like this or that, etc., or "I have a daughter", or something along those lines, when talking about Elliot Page - who did not go by that name then. So, let us fix one of those instances (if you are not certain that any of that happened, let us assume it happened for the sake of the argument, as my question works for a hypothetical case anyway). My question to you is: Do you believe that Ms. Philpotts made a false claim?

I am not asking about whether Ms. Philpotts did anything wrong, but only whether the claim was false (or if you like to nitpick, whether you have sufficient information to ascertain that the claim was false, or at least probably false).

I have literally no sense of humor for semantic arguments. They are tantamount to basing your worldview on a pun.

I have very strong nominalist views. We would be better off taking that up, in greater detail, on one of the philosophy forums. The bottom-line is that I find hypostatization to be profoundly offensive.

My nominalist views affect my views on semiotic theory. I owe nothing to abstract things. I do not owe anything to my language, and my language owes its very existence to me. My language is my slave. Sometimes, I like to beat my slave with a whip just because doing so amuses me. Sometimes, I truncate its limbs just to keep myself in practice. I will use my language in the manner that is the most convenient for me.

It is convenient for me to call myself a woman. Calling myself a woman makes me feel pretty damn fantastic. I will do what makes me feel good. I will do what makes my life better. To my language, I am a deity. May my will be done.

Don't you wanna to be evil, like me?
Don't you wanna to be cruel?
Don't you wanna be nasty and brutal and cool?

I do not require a good reason to butcher this language. I can butcher this language for fun if I want to.

What it sounds like you want to do is create a semantic argument to try to pressure me into calling myself a man when I really do not want to and when doing so is extremely bad for my mental health. If you are like other people I have interacted with that have relied on semantic arguments, then you want to try to entrap me into agreeing that I should call myself the "correct" thing, so you can mount some sort of clever argument, based on rigged assumptions, that makes it "incorrect" to call myself a woman.

I will call myself a woman because it makes me feel good, and it is arguably necessary for my mental health. I do not owe anything to semantics.

I will dangle your language upside-down over a cauldron of boiling hot oil if it suits me to do so.

The answer is no, no, no, no,
no, no, hell to the no.

Semantic arguments tend to be the most grievous of bad faith arguments.