Colorado club shooter is non-binary, CNN repeatedly misgenders them.

[senor boogie woogie]

But “they” (again…) is plural, not singular. Why should people be confused reading or listening to the news or stories? Please. The English language has been bombarded with asinine words and phrases for the past twenty years.

If “they” have to pee, is it standing up or sitting down? Even though they have a penis, maybe they thinks they is a woman and they are more comfortable sitting down. This doesn’t count if they is taking a shoo shoo and urinates anyway. I hope they gets used to people looking at they on the toilet or in the shower; but they will probably enjoy the prison orgy.

 

[TomC]

But “they” (again…) is plural, not singular.

Again. No it isn't.

It used to be, but now it's not. That's the reality, regardless of how much you kick against the traces or have your fee-fees hurt.

There's lots of stuff about standard English that isn't precise and has changed. When I am King of English Usage, yall will use "you" as second person singular and "yall" as second person plural. It's more precise.
Tom

 

[Metaphor]

Not really. Is does not inform Ought.

Are you denying that prisons were segregated on sex lines? If so, why?

The long history of race based chattel slavery does not mean that segregation along racial lines must be "acknowledged" except to condemn it's continuance.

I think you don't know what the word 'acknowledged' means.

A history of wrongness does not justify continuity of that history into the present.

You haven't made the case that segregating prisons by sex is wrong.

Yes, I'm afraid you have and you do misgender folks because your view that definitions are prescriptive, that these words are defined not by usage but by your just-so insistence that they be used in some specific way, is at odds with the reality of how language operates.

On the contrary. It is only recently that some people have started to use pronouns for humans to refer to 'gender identity'.

The very fact that we here use pronouns to denote gender on these forums by in large, means that your use of pronouns in that way with these people here is at odds with the use of language in this place generally.

On iidb, I agree. iidb is not the world. Lots of places develop dialects.

 

[Metaphor]

What do you mean, "so what"? Are you doing your impression of a sassy fifteen year old mouthing off to your mother or something: "So what?" I rationally nearly refute everything you've written, and you just stare at me slack-jawed and go "so what"?

You didn't refute a single thing. You made a series of assertions, none of which seem related to anything I've said.

So, your claims aren't correct. So, you're ignoring actual science, history, and linguistics and making vague, authoritative, and entirely inaccurate statements about what humanity has "always" done or believed.

Quote a claim I made, and explain why what I said about it was misleading or wrong.

Not to mention, pretending not to understand or acknowledge simple high-school level words like gender, masculinity, and femininity.

Asking people to tell me what they mean when they use the word 'gender' is not a pretense. I want to know exactly what they mean so we do not argue at cross purposes. Some people mean biological sex when they say gender. Some people mean 'gender identity'. Some people mean sex-roles.

I don't know where you think I said I didn't know what masculinity or femininity meant. You appear to be manufacturing objections from whole cloth.

 

[Metaphor]

Jarhyn made the claim it is possible to be born gay.

Very true. And you disputed it even though it is not possible to verify whether it is true or not. Given the absence of evidence, it seems reasonable to leave the possibility open rather than to completely deny it.

I am skeptical of his claim and don't accept it unless Jarhyn proves it.

Skepticism is one thing - confident denial of something that is possible is another. It is the difference in appearing rational and appearing dogmatically irrational.

I am confident that nobody is born gay, including people whose brain and environment would inevitably result in their being gay, should they reach the age where it makes sense to talk about sexual orientation.

 

[Politesse]

What do you mean, "so what"? Are you doing your impression of a sassy fifteen year old mouthing off to your mother or something: "So what?" I rationally nearly refute everything you've written, and you just stare at me slack-jawed and go "so what"?

You didn't refute a single thing. You made a series of assertions, none of which seem related to anything I've said.

So, your claims aren't correct. So, you're ignoring actual science, history, and linguistics and making vague, authoritative, and entirely inaccurate statements about what humanity has "always" done or believed.

Quote a claim I made, and explain why what I said about it was misleading or wrong.

Not to mention, pretending not to understand or acknowledge simple high-school level words like gender, masculinity, and femininity.

Asking people to tell me what they mean when they use the word 'gender' is not a pretense. I want to know exactly what they mean so we do not argue at cross purposes. Some people mean biological sex when they say gender. Some people mean 'gender identity'. Some people mean sex-roles.

I don't know where you think I said I didn't know what masculinity or femininity meant. You appear to be manufacturing objections from whole cloth.

I'm not going to have a long argument about your ego. Address the topic, or don't bother.

 

[TomC]

I am confident that nobody is born gay,

I am confident that you don't understand simple things, like how common words are used in ordinary conversation. You've demonstrated that to my satisfaction.
Tom

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Until we have a better picture of the situation I don't see how we can properly assign pronouns in this case.

If the person is making their pronouns known, then there is no need for us to 'properly assign pronouns in this case.'

Normally I would agree. However, so far we only have the defense attorney calling them non-binary. It might very well be true but I want some evidence of it.

 

[laughing dog]

Jarhyn made the claim it is possible to be born gay.

Very true. And you disputed it even though it is not possible to verify whether it is true or not. Given the absence of evidence, it seems reasonable to leave the possibility open rather than to completely deny it.

I am skeptical of his claim and don't accept it unless Jarhyn proves it.

Skepticism is one thing - confident denial of something that is possible is another. It is the difference in appearing rational and appearing dogmatically irrational.

I am confident that nobody is born gay, including people whose brain and environment would inevitably result in their being gay, should they reach the age where it makes sense to talk about sexual orientation.

No need to provide more evidence of your kneejerk dogmatism.

 

[Jarhyn]

Are you denying that prisons were segregated on sex lines?

No, I'm saying that how things were or even are done is not suitable justification for doing them that way. You have offered no justification for "sex" segregation, and to continue to do so will result in continued negative externalities.

I think you don't know what the word 'acknowledged' means.

If you can offer any assurances any more solid than the masses you leave in the middle of the floor that you mean anything beyond "talked about as if the 'is' justifies 'ought'", be my guest. I have yet to see any such justification.

You haven't made the case that segregating prisons by sex is wrong

You have yet to make any case that segregation by sex is anything beyond a bad proxy for the more correct dimensions I have described.

My case is that there are two actual valid concerns: steroidal hormone exposure and pregnancy. Neither of these things is exactly "sex".

You are the one claiming "sex segregation" is right. That places a burden on you to establish it is MORE right than discrimination exactly on those well documented material bases.

On the contrary. It is only recently that some people have started to use pronouns for humans to refer to 'gender identity'.

The recency of the change, while disputed, makes it no less appropriate. That is how people use pronouns these days and in these parts. Arguably that's how they were always used. Politesse has well established that point.

On iidb, I agree

And on IIDB you have misgendered numerous people numerous times, including the subject of the OP. Case in point, you have repeatedly done the thing you claim to not have done.

IIDB may not be "the world" but it is definitely where we are discussing now, and your claim that you have not done the thing you HAVE done is dishonest, to say the least.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You are simply incorrect about pronouns, TomC. Pronoun usage wasn't secretly 'gendered' in the past for humans in English. It was based on sex.

No, pronoun usage norms were developed before the distinction between sex and gender was generally made.

For the overwhelming majority today, sex and gender are still linked. But not necessarily, so to being basically social means taking cues, rather than deciding for yourself what you prefer to use in the way of pronouns.

This is not rocket science.
Tom

I think the keyword here is "linked". The body is full of systems that can fail in myriad ways without being lethal.

We used to see genetics, physical organs, sexual attraction and self identity as a set which should only occur as (XY, male, female, male) and (XX, female, male, female), any other combinations were seriously wrong. We've had it slapped in our faces that XY females exist, we've come to the general acceptance that sexual attraction can vary and we are on the road to accepting that gender can also vary.

Personally, I'm in the camp that says there is no such thing as heterosexual/homosexual at the biological level. Rather, we have an attracted-to-men system and an attracted-to-women system. The system for the opposing gender is supposed to be turned on and the system for the same gender is supposed to be turned off--but this switch doesn't work too well. (Bisexual is both turned on, asexual is neither turned on. And they're ranges, not on/off.) I am beginning to think that gender might be the same way, also--two systems that can be turned on to varying degrees. It only becomes a "problem" when the gender that matches the anatomy is turned way down.

 

[Metaphor]

I am confident that nobody is born gay,

I am confident that you don't understand simple things, like how common words are used in ordinary conversation. You've demonstrated that to my satisfaction.
Tom

Cheers Tom.

 

[Toni]

Until we have a better picture of the situation I don't see how we can properly assign pronouns in this case.

If the person is making their pronouns known, then there is no need for us to 'properly assign pronouns in this case.'

Normally I would agree. However, so far we only have the defense attorney calling them non-binary. It might very well be true but I want some evidence of it.

Why? Are you planning to meet them in person and don't want to cause any embarrassment?

 

[Metaphor]

Jarhyn made the claim it is possible to be born gay.

Very true. And you disputed it even though it is not possible to verify whether it is true or not. Given the absence of evidence, it seems reasonable to leave the possibility open rather than to completely deny it.

I am skeptical of his claim and don't accept it unless Jarhyn proves it.

Skepticism is one thing - confident denial of something that is possible is another. It is the difference in appearing rational and appearing dogmatically irrational.

I am confident that nobody is born gay, including people whose brain and environment would inevitably result in their being gay, should they reach the age where it makes sense to talk about sexual orientation.

No need to provide more evidence of your kneejerk dogmatism.

Of course:

"People are born gay": A-Okay statement that is not kneejerk dogmatism and of course is confidently made and doesn't need evidence.

"Nobody is born gay, babies don't have a sexual orientation": Dogmatic, kneejerk statement.

Keep on keepin' on, laughing dog.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I think it is rather cavalier to proclaim a binary when there are such messy shades of grey.

Sex is binary, Jarhyn. There are two, and only two, gamete types in humans. There is no third reproductive strategy.

So what is an XXY person? What's an XYY person? What's a female-appearing XY person? What's an approximately-female XY person that develops a penis at puberty?

People said the same bullshit you did, but about homosexuals, claiming that it was not possible for someone to be born gay, too,

It is impossible. Babies don't have a sexual orientation.

And babies don't have boobs, either. Does that mean none can be female? The system can be there but dormant.

No you should not. The context in the title gives singular "shooter", so anyone whom the public education system has not utterly failed should be fine.

No. The pronoun has introduced ambiguities. For example, some news stories are ambiguous about whether 'they' refers to the shooter alone, or the shooter and his legal team.

Yeah, "they" is one of those oddball words that is both singular and plural. Blame English for this problem--it long predates the trans movement. (Or blame English for having separate singular/plural versions. Chinese doesn't suffer for the lack of word modification, it's not a necessary feature for a language to have. (But native Chinese speakers do suffer for it when trying to learn languages that do modify words. On the other hand, we suffer from it when trying to learn languages that have more forms or different forms than we do.)

 

[TomC]

I am confident that nobody is born gay,

I am confident that you don't understand simple things, like how common words are used in ordinary conversation. You've demonstrated that to my satisfaction.
Tom

Cheers Tom.

Bless Your Heart Metaphor.
Tom

 

[Metaphor]

No, I'm saying that how things were or even are done is not suitable justification for doing them that way. You have offered no justification for "sex" segregation, and to continue to do so will result in continued negative externalities.

Of course I've offered justifications. In fact, many of them are the same as yours. In fact, our segregation policies are almost exactly the same--but not quite exactly.

If you can offer any assurances any more solid than the masses you leave in the middle of the floor that you mean anything beyond "talked about as if the 'is' justifies 'ought'", be my guest. I have yet to see any such justification.

TomC does not acknowledge that pronouns in English, when used for humans, were used in reference to the sex of the target of the pronouns. He imagined they had always somehow referred to gender identity, even before the concept of gender identity was formulated. Since we were having an argument about pronoun usage, which is part of language usage, evidence of usage is important.

You have yet to make any case that segregation by sex is anything beyond a bad proxy for the more correct dimensions I have described.

The..."more correct" dimensions? Why are they 'more correct'? What problem do you think we are trying to solve? What premises are you positing? Have I agreed to those premises?

My case is that there are two actual valid concerns: steroidal hormone exposure and pregnancy. Neither of these things is exactly "sex".

Oh, you know the actual valid concerns? Whom did you consult to arrive at this final list of actual valid concerns?

You are the one claiming "sex segregation" is right. That places a burden on you to establish it is MORE right than discrimination exactly on those well documented material bases.

Non. You do not understand the burden of proof. I acknowledge that sex segregation for prisons is the reality (until recently, in some places). I do not accept your alternative arrangement simply because you've labelled them as 'actually' and 'validly' addressing concerns you have not delimited. You have not explained what makes a concern 'actual' and 'valid'.

And in fact, sex-segregation and your alternative arrangements are nearly the same arrangement. But your arrangement will never be accepted by trans activists.

The recency of the change, while disputed, makes it no less appropriate. That is how people use pronouns these days and in these parts.

That is how the powers that be at iidb have decided people shall use pronouns, as it has adopted a prescriptivist approach.

Arguably that's how they were always used. Politesse has well established that point.

Politesse has not 'established' that point. The idea is literally impossible. "Gender identity" was a term coined in the 1950s, and it had almost no public awareness until perhaps the 1970s. The idea that pronouns, in English and applied to humans, referred to gender identity all along is straight-up fantasy.

And on IIDB you have misgendered numerous people numerous times,

Not once. Not ever. I have 'misgendered' people only according to the dialect of English you speak.

And you--you misgender me continuously. You are not even ashamed of it. You use pronouns for me that, under either set of dialects, are wrong.

i) I use pronouns to refer to sex in humans. So when you call me 'they', as you do constantly, you are wrong according to my usage.
ii) Knowing i), knowing I use 'he' because of my sex, you deliberately and repeatedly go against that to use 'they'. This is wrong according to the iidb dialect.

including the subject of the OP. Case in point, you have repeatedly done the thing you claim to not have done.

It is my understanding, that even with iidb's rules, 'misgendering' third parties or people who are not members of the board is not a violation. iidb's rules will have to be broken at some point, however, as people use neopronouns and iidb enforces only she, he, and they.

IIDB may not be "the world" but it is definitely where we are discussing now, and your claim that you have not done the thing you HAVE done is dishonest, to say the least.

No--I am rejecting the premise. I have sinned, according to Catholic theology, for example, by having sex outside (Catholic) marriage. I acknowledge that within the rules of the faith, I have done what is claimed.

But I do not believe I have actually sinned, because sin is a transgression against god, and there is no god.

 

[Metaphor]

So what is an XXY person? What's an XYY person? What's a female-appearing XY person? What's an approximately-female XY person that develops a penis at puberty?

Oy gevalt. The existence of differences in sexual development does not mean sex is not a binary. There are two sexes because there are two gamete types. There is no third gamete type.

For social purposes, either your body was organised around the production of large, sessile gametes (the 'default' development) and you are female, or it was not so organised, and you are male.

When you produce evidence of a third gamete type, I will revise my belief that there are only two sexes.

And babies don't have boobs, either.

I have seen some fat babies.

Does that mean none can be female? The system can be there but dormant.

Oy gevalt. Some people are born with a genetic predisposition towards cancer. That doesn't mean they have cancer when they are born.

All I claimed was that babies are not born gay because babies don't have a sexual orientation.

The amount of pushback and resistance against this obvious statement beggars belief.

Yeah, "they" is one of those oddball words that is both singular and plural. Blame English for this problem--it long predates the trans movement. (Or blame English for having separate singular/plural versions. Chinese doesn't suffer for the lack of word modification, it's not a necessary feature for a language to have. (But native Chinese speakers do suffer for it when trying to learn languages that do modify words. On the other hand, we suffer from it when trying to learn languages that have more forms or different forms than we do.)

And nouns and pronouns in Turkish don't have gender at all. I was pushing back against Jarhyn's incorrect statement that the singular 'they' introduces no ambiguities whatsoever. Jarhyn is wrong. Instead of saying "yes, it can introduce ambiguities but the price is acceptable and people will need to be more careful", Jarhyn implied anybody who was confused had a reading level of grade 5 or below.

 

[TomC]

TomC does not acknowledge that pronouns in English, when used for humans, were used in reference to the sex of the target of the pronouns.

That's simply not true.
I've acknowledged that I don't care enough about old language usage to learn the details of Middle English. I don't even care about what people in the 60s thought was correct.

Language adapts to society. Society doesn't adapt to the language. Especially in the English speaking world, we've been whoring out our language with abandon for centuries.

I've heard people complain about how the word "gay" has gone from a really good thing to a disgusting abomination before the Lord.
Guess what.

I didn't care about their fee-fees either. Nobody is gonna run my life by referring to the way words used to be used, back in the good ole days.

Fuck yall.
Tom

ETA ~"Fuck yall" is a fair translation of "Bless Your Heart"~

 

[laughing dog]

Jarhyn made the claim it is possible to be born gay.

Very true. And you disputed it even though it is not possible to verify whether it is true or not. Given the absence of evidence, it seems reasonable to leave the possibility open rather than to completely deny it.

I am skeptical of his claim and don't accept it unless Jarhyn proves it.

Skepticism is one thing - confident denial of something that is possible is another. It is the difference in appearing rational and appearing dogmatically irrational.

I am confident that nobody is born gay, including people whose brain and environment would inevitably result in their being gay, should they reach the age where it makes sense to talk about sexual orientation.

No need to provide more evidence of your kneejerk dogmatism.

Of course:

"People are born gay": A-Okay statement that is not kneejerk dogmatism and of course is confidently made and doesn't need evidence.

"Nobody is born gay, babies don't have a sexual orientation": Dogmatic, kneejerk statement.

Really, you've proven that you are rigid dogmatic "thinker". So there is no need take statements out of context or to create strawmen to reinforce your rigid biases. No one can know whether anyone is born gay or not. But it is possible. Denying the possibility is unreasonable and illogical . Persistence in the denial is rigid dogmatic naysaying. But history shows that is what you are best at.