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

[TomC]

I was pushing back against Jarhyn's incorrect statement that the singular 'they' introduces no ambiguities whatsoever. Jarhyn is wrong.

I notice that you didn't quite quote Jarhyn saying that. I'm confident that it's because Jarhyn didn't.

English has tons of ambiguity. More than most languages, if I understand linguistics. That makes it better than most languages, because we can express so many different thoughts and concepts fluently enough for the context.
Tom

 

[Metaphor]

I was pushing back against Jarhyn's incorrect statement that the singular 'they' introduces no ambiguities whatsoever. Jarhyn is wrong.

I notice that you didn't quite quote Jarhyn saying that. I'm confident that it's because Jarhyn didn't.

He did it in his response to senor boogie woogie.

English has tons of ambiguity. More than most languages, if I understand linguistics. That makes it better than most languages, because we can express so many different thoughts and concepts fluently enough for the context.
Tom

I am not evaluating English as to its merits. I am saying that use of singular they introduces ambiguity. Jarhyn would prefer to be ableist by blaming mental capacity than acknowledging the simple fact of English.

 

[TomC]

He did it in his response to senor boogie woogie.

Maybe so.
Maybe not.
Maybe you won't quote Jarhyn because he didn't say what you claim he did.
I dunno.

I am not evaluating English as to its merits. I am saying that use of singular they introduces ambiguity. Jarhyn would prefer to be ableist by blaming mental capacity than acknowledging the simple fact of English.

I agree that English has lots of ambiguity.

That makes it better, IMNSHO.

Competent adults can usually figure out the meaning of a word, as used, from the context.

We find sermons concerning Middle English word usage boring, pedantic, and useless. The modern world isn't the same as the one that supports your self image.

You're so groovy.
Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

Of course I've offered justifications

No, so far you have offered "what was done" not "why was done".

In fact, our segregation policies are almost exactly the same--but not quite exactly.

Because my policies achieve the purpose behind the segregation you wish absent the problem which your version.

Indeed, something can be "mostly right" but still tragically wrong.

The state can and should achieve it's aims without declaring folks as "men" or "women" in any official way.

'misgendering' third parties or people who are not members of the board is not a violation

Regardless of whether or not is is a violation, you have done it, to both IIDB members and nonmembers alike. You claimed that it was not something you do, not something you have ever done.

This is false, however. You have clearly done both against members here and people elsewhere.

You can argue that you did nothing wrong, but you cannot argue that this is not what you have done.

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

You have misgendered people, regardless of whether or not that is a "sin". Socially, it is an affront, an effort to cast people and their image of self aside in favor of your personal view of them.

Regardless of whether or not it is a "sin" it is something you do and your childish denials that you have ever done it are just that: childish.

The existence of differences in sexual development does not mean sex is not a binary

Divergence does in fact invalidate a strict binary. As it is the  stricture of the binary that is in question, especially surrounding divergent cases (such as people born with genitals more closely resembling A than B but brains and resulting behaviors and thought patterns more closely resembling B than A), it's the only pertinent fact!

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

Sex determinism is a fairly disgusting thing to bring into "social" purposes. For "social" purposes I don't need to know any of that. It's unimportant to social ends.

People have come to realize that and stepped away from such usages. Virtually nothing changes except that now people are recognized for who they strive to become without being limited by who they were in the past.

I was pushing back against Jarhyn's incorrect statement that the singular 'they' introduces no ambiguities whatsoever. Jarhyn is wrong

I didn't say it introduced no ambiguity. I just said that anyone with more than a 5th grade reading level is generally not going to be troubled by them.

And for those who have such trouble, they CAN always use the pronouns requested.

That's not wrong. It's apt.

 

[ZiprHead]

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.

So what, in your opinion, does make people gay?

 

[southernhybrid]

I agree that the they as a singular does sound awkward when we aren't in the habit of using it, but I'm trying to adapt. I don't want to offend anyone who is harmless and simply identifies as a member of a minority gender. I don't need to understand their identity to be respectful.

On the other hand, nonbinary folks need to be patient with people, as cultural changes come slowly, even when people are open to change. I've visited some social media sites for those who identify as nonbinary and most said that the pronouns weren't that big of a deal to them. While most preferred they, most were fine with being identified by the gender that they appeared to be. Good for them.

It's more important how you treat a person, even if you're not always using the correct gender pronoun. I have a friend who's 19 year old daughter recently came out as nonbinary. My friend is as progressive as one can be, but she told me she was having trouble always using the they pronoun for her daughter. Hopefully, her daughter will be patient with her mom, but she is 19. She's lucky to have such a caring, accepting mother as my friend. Her mother accepts her/their new identity regardless of how she refers to her/them.

Maybe some of the lesser known pronouns used to identify nonbinary folks will eventually become mainstream and this they/them confusion will end. I think there are a lot more important things for people to worry about, considering what's happening in the world.

 

[Metaphor]

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.

So what, in your opinion, does make people gay?

This is entirely off topic. I think it's a combination of genetics and environment.

 

[Metaphor]

He did it in his response to senor boogie woogie.

Maybe so.
Maybe not.
Maybe you won't quote Jarhyn because he didn't say what you claim he did.
I dunno.

You are correct that you do not know.

I am not evaluating English as to its merits. I am saying that use of singular they introduces ambiguity. Jarhyn would prefer to be ableist by blaming mental capacity than acknowledging the simple fact of English.

I agree that English has lots of ambiguity.

That makes it better, IMNSHO.

Competent adults can usually figure out the meaning of a word, as used, from the context.

We find sermons concerning Middle English word usage boring, pedantic, and useless. The modern world isn't the same as the one that supports your self image.

You're so groovy.
Tom

Yes, you've said the same thing a number of times now.

 

[Bomb#20]

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

It isn't, though -- some people use "yall" as a second person singular. If you want to be precisely plural, you need to say "all y'all".

 

[Metaphor]

Of course I've offered justifications

No, so far you have offered "what was done" not "why was done".

It was done to segregate the sexes in spaces where women's modesty and safety would otherwise be at risk from men.

In fact, our segregation policies are almost exactly the same--but not quite exactly.

Because my policies achieve the purpose behind the segregation you wish absent the problem which your version.

Indeed, something can be "mostly right" but still tragically wrong.

The state can and should achieve it's aims without declaring folks as "men" or "women" in any official way.

You haven't stated what you think the State's aims are.

Tell me, why do you think the State segregated prisoners by sex?

'misgendering' third parties or people who are not members of the board is not a violation

Regardless of whether or not is is a violation, you have done it, to both IIDB members and nonmembers alike. You claimed that it was not something you do, not something you have ever done.

This is false, however. You have clearly done both against members here and people elsewhere.

No. I have not done it. I have never done it. I have done it in the eyes of your religion only. I do not believe your religion.

You can argue that you did nothing wrong, but you cannot argue that this is not what you have done.

The act of 'misgendering' via pronouns is an act that can only happen according to the dogma of your religion. I am not an adherent of your religion.

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

You have misgendered people, regardless of whether or not that is a "sin". Socially, it is an affront, an effort to cast people and their image of self aside in favor of your personal view of them.

Regardless of whether or not it is a "sin" it is something you do and your childish denials that you have ever done it are just that: childish.

You misunderstand. It was an analogy. I did not claim misgendering was a sin. I mean: according to you, using the correct-sexed pronouns is misgendering because pronouns refer to gender. I do not believe pronouns, in English, refer to 'gender'. That is your belief, not mine.

The existence of differences in sexual development does not mean sex is not a binary

Divergence does in fact invalidate a strict binary. As it is the  stricture of the binary that is in question, especially surrounding divergent cases (such as people born with genitals more closely resembling A than B but brains and resulting behaviors and thought patterns more closely resembling B than A), it's the only pertinent fact!

Sex is a binary. There is no third gamete type, Jarhyn. Mammals cannot change sex, and there are only two reproductive strategies.

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

Sex determinism is a fairly disgusting thing to bring into "social" purposes. For "social" purposes I don't need to know any of that. It's unimportant to social ends.

On the contrary: humans instinctively recognise sex differences -- especially in adults. The phenotypical differences caused by sex were perceived by humans long before we actually understood the biology properly.

People have come to realize that and stepped away from such usages. Virtually nothing changes except that now people are recognized for who they strive to become without being limited by who they were in the past.

Men cannot become women, no matter how much they strive. It is biologically impossible.

I was pushing back against Jarhyn's incorrect statement that the singular 'they' introduces no ambiguities whatsoever. Jarhyn is wrong

I didn't say it introduced no ambiguity. I just said that anyone with more than a 5th grade reading level is generally not going to be troubled by them.

Very good. So we do have some new ambiguities, but you are not bothered by them, because you personally have at least a 5th grade reading level.

 

[TomC]

It isn't, though -- some people use "yall" as a second person singular. If you want to be precisely plural, you need to say "all y'all".

Which part of

When I am King of English Usage,

Did you fail to understand?

Tom

 

[Bomb#20]

English has tons of ambiguity. More than most languages, if I understand linguistics. That makes it better than most languages, because we can express so many different thoughts and concepts fluently enough for the context.
Tom

Claims that one language has more ambiguity than another or is better than another are red flags that the speaker doesn't understand linguistics. A speaker can be ambiguous or unambiguous, express many different thoughts and concepts fluently, and express highly context-dependent meanings, in any natural language. The degree to which this is the case for a particular language is not something that can be quantitatively measured in any way that allows for objective inter-language comparisons. Of course someone could come up with a list of words or constructs that are ambiguous in English but not in French; but someone else could come up with a list of the opposite. Which list is more significant is necessarily a matter of subjective opinion -- there are no SI units of ambiguousness.

 

[Metaphor]

English has tons of ambiguity. More than most languages, if I understand linguistics. That makes it better than most languages, because we can express so many different thoughts and concepts fluently enough for the context.
Tom

Claims that one language has more ambiguity than another or is better than another are red flags that the speaker doesn't understand linguistics. A speaker can be ambiguous or unambiguous, express many different thoughts and concepts fluently, and express highly context-dependent meanings, in any natural language. The degree to which this is the case for a particular language is not something that can be quantitatively measured in any way that allows for objective inter-language comparisons. Of course someone could come up with a list of words or constructs that are ambiguous in English but not in French; but someone else could come up with a list of the opposite. Which list is more significant is necessarily a matter of subjective opinion -- there are no SI units of ambiguousness.

In Croatian, the colour plav(a) means blue when it is describing the colour of the sky, but blond(e) when describing hair.

"But...", I objected to my Croatian professor "...what if you are trying to say the person has hair that isn't blonde, but actually dyed what we mean by blue in English?". My professor said you would have to find a different way to say it. I guess the Croats had not anticipated problem hair.

 

[Jarhyn]

Of course I've offered justifications

No, so far you have offered "what was done" not "why was done".

It was done to segregate the sexes in spaces where women's modesty and safety would otherwise be at risk from men.

This modesty you reference is an element of sex essentialism.

Now, if you would kindly describe the exact risks you are referencing, their nature and source, their mechanism?

Note that there are only hormonal signals between the gonads and the brain so, keep that in mind.

And then justify a right to special modesty.

If other folks have a right to be modest of their genitals in front of those you deem "men", why should I or anyone lack of it?

Because I am most certainly not a man.

I'm not a woman, either...

In fact, our segregation policies are almost exactly the same--but not quite exactly.

Because my policies achieve the purpose behind the segregation you wish absent the problem which your version.

Indeed, something can be "mostly right" but still tragically wrong.

The state can and should achieve it's aims without declaring folks as "men" or "women" in any official way.

You haven't stated what you think the State's aims are.

The state's aims and responsibilities are to protect people from material harm.

People who take abandon with the laws who are hopped up on steroids could constitute a material harm, especially for those who reject or don't get exposure to those steroids.

People who ejaculate sperms  do constitute a different material harm, especially to those who may get pregnant by them.

Those are two things that constitute a  material harm.

Neither of these things is "being a man" in my estimation.

It creates a two part heuristic that manages to get the shooter segregated in an appropriate way, a way exactly orthogonal to the material harms listed, without calling them a "man" if they express this desire.

The state has a responsibility to not encroach unduly on our liberties after all.

I think the liberty to live true to some ideal is more important than the demand that the government makes a law respecting an establishment of what you yourself consider religion.

Tell me, why do you think the State segregated prisoners by sex?

Because the experiences of people were small and limited, unable to observe enough instances of the human condition to understand that the common understanding of "man" and "woman" saw would possibly exist.

Much like the invisibility of the homosexual, the invisibility of the trans person, or the nonbinary prevented it from ever being understood.

Now as we look upon it today, we can see how blind society was with respect to these fractions of it.

'misgendering' third parties or people who are not members of the board is not a violation

Regardless of whether or not is is a violation, you have done it, to both IIDB members and nonmembers alike. You claimed that it was not something you do, not something you have ever done.

This is false, however. You have clearly done both against members here and people elsewhere.

No. I have not done it. I have never done it. I have done it in the eyes of your religion only. I do not believe your religion.

You did the action described as "misgendering", which is to say using pronouns such as "he/him" for someone who has requested "they/them" or "she/her" or the like.

This is what misgendering is referent to and you have done exactly those things. In this thread. With relation to the subject of the OP. Repeatedly.

This has happened. That is what "misgendering" is, regardless of whether you believe it is acceptable behavior or whether others believe so.

You have done that action.

You may believe that it is "religion" such as to judge someone negatively for doing so, but it is not "religion" to use a term to denote a meaning.

You can yet again argue that what you did was not wrong, but you ought not continue trying to claim what you did was not exactly what you did.

It's OK to admit it. It's not ok to keep doing it, but it's OK to admit it. I've done it in the past. I may do it in the future, though I aspire not to.

But it's not OK to do something unapologetically and then claim you did not do that thing.

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

You have misgendered people, regardless of whether or not that is a "sin". Socially, it is an affront, an effort to cast people and their image of self aside in favor of your personal view of them.

Regardless of whether or not it is a "sin" it is something you do and your childish denials that you have ever done it are just that: childish.

You misunderstand. It was an analogy. I did not claim misgendering was a sin. I mean: according to you, using the correct-sexed pronouns is misgendering because pronouns refer to gender. I do not believe pronouns, in English, refer to 'gender'. That is your belief, not mine.

According to me using the pronoun counter to the one someone has requested is "misgendering". That is what I mean when I say it. It is, as far as I know, what everyone means when they say, other than you.

Regardless of what you or I believe about gender, you use pronouns counter to the ones requested. Not even ambiguous to, but counter to.

That is a fact.

It is a fact regardless of what either you or I find to be "the correct pronouns to use". They asked for A and you did NOT-A with respect to pronouns.

Again you can argue you did nothing wrong, but you can't reasonably argue that you did not do the thing you did do.

The existence of differences in sexual development does not mean sex is not a binary

Divergence does in fact invalidate a strict binary. As it is the  stricture of the binary that is in question, especially surrounding divergent cases (such as people born with genitals more closely resembling A than B but brains and resulting behaviors and thought patterns more closely resembling B than A), it's the only pertinent fact!

Sex is a binary. There is no third gamete type, Jarhyn. Mammals cannot change sex, and there are only two reproductive strategies.

All of these things are false. Every last one.

Sex is not a binary, it's generalization of trends in minutiae.

Gamete type does not enter into it except as one piece of the minutiae. Someone can produce a gamete that you would declare unsuited for it's launch mechanism.

There are myriad reproductive strategies, binary sexual, nonbinary sexual, and asexual, of biological organisms.

And while mammals cannot change certain minutiae, certain minutiae are determined by things that we can steer towards or away before the fact of it, and all of the above may be discordant more or less from the generalized trends.

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

Sex determinism is a fairly disgusting thing to bring into "social" purposes. For "social" purposes I don't need to know any of that. It's unimportant to social ends.

On the contrary: humans instinctively recognise sex differences -- especially in adults. The phenotypical differences caused by sex were perceived by humans long before we actually understood the biology properly.

"And humans instinctively recognize "race" differences too! Especially in adults. The phenotypical differences caused by "race" were perceived long before we understood the biology properly..."

Your claim that because people have a vague instinctual understanding of general trends does not justify the correctness of that understanding.

People have come to realize that and stepped away from such usages. Virtually nothing changes except that now people are recognized for who they strive to become without being limited by who they were in the past.

Men cannot become women, no matter how much they strive. It is biologically impossible.

"Man" and "woman" are yet again messy generalizations of trends in minutiae.

Maybe people you consider "men" cannot become people you consider "women".

The thing is, when someone comes out of the egg, generally we accept that they have always really been that. That it was the previous thing that they never were. Rather that they were always the mind of this thing they have always been, diverted perhaps by some accident of biology.

The point is in recognizing that the mind is the important part of this equation, not the thing which only talks to the mind through "easily" hijacked hormonal signals.

I was pushing back against Jarhyn's incorrect statement that the singular 'they' introduces no ambiguities whatsoever. Jarhyn is wrong

I didn't say it introduced no ambiguity. I just said that anyone with more than a 5th grade reading level is generally not going to be troubled by them.

Very good. So we do have some new ambiguities, but you are not bothered by them, because you personally have at least a 5th grade reading level.

No, I'm not bothered by them because the vast majority of adults have at least a 5th grade reading level, and the ones who don't should probably be ashamed of themselves and pick up a GD book. Even an audiobook would be fine. I recommend Ursula K LeGuin. She's great.

Or maybe our public education system is failing? We could spend more on that too, I think.

 

[Bomb#20]

'misgendering' third parties or people who are not members of the board is not a violation

Regardless of whether or not is is a violation, you have done it, to both IIDB members and nonmembers alike. You claimed that it was not something you do, not something you have ever done.

This is false, however. You have clearly done both against members here and people elsewhere.

You can argue that you did nothing wrong, but you cannot argue that this is not what you have done.

To argue that the genderer has done nothing wrong is to argue that "misgendering" is not what he or she has done. The two are one and the same.

According to the OED:

mis-
/mis/
prefix
(added to verbs and their derivatives) wrongly.
"misapply"​

When certain religious zealots invented a sin and decided to create a label for their new transgression by verbing "gender" and tacking on a prefix that means "wrongly", they forever forfeited any standing to claim the word has any descriptive use whatsoever. The word is prescriptive by design. If the sinmakers wanted people not to be able to argue that this is not what they have done, then they needed to coin a word defined only by the class of incidents they use it to refer to, a completely new word for their sin, such as "fleeme".

That takes care of the terminological issue. As to the substance of the dispute, accusations of "misgendering" are almost invariably based on an equivocation fallacy: the delusion that "gender" and "gender identity" are synonyms. The circumstance that you observe someone use a gendered term that doesn't match the gender identity of the person referred to does not constitute evidence that he or she used a gendered term that doesn't match the gender of the person referred to. To get from the premise to the conclusion you would need to supply evidence that the referenced person's gender matches his or her gender identity. That is a gap in the argument that those who make "misgendering" accusations never bother to fill in. They just assume the one implies the other, as a matter of religious faith.

Metaphor is claiming not to have wrongly gendered anyone. You cannot refute his claim by appealing to the rules of your ideology's made-up language. To refute him you have to actually demonstrate that he stated someone's gender wrongly. To say he gendered someone wrongly because "misgender" is the word your subculture uses for what he did is nothing but proof-by-blatant-assertion.

You have misgendered people, regardless of whether or not that is a "sin".

Show your work.

Socially, it is an affront, an effort to cast people and their image of self aside in favor of your personal view of them.

It might be that. Or it might be simply using his language organ's hardware accelerator for an operation instead of running the operation in software, much as he might use IEEE floating-point instead of one of the myriad possible alternatives some religious whacko claims is better, because IEEE floating-point is what his coprocessor implements. Or it might be an act of civil disobedience motivated by the expectation that knuckling under to theocrats on one point will only lead them to up their demands.

 

[Metaphor]

Of course I've offered justifications

No, so far you have offered "what was done" not "why was done".

It was done to segregate the sexes in spaces where women's modesty and safety would otherwise be at risk from men.

This modesty you reference is an element of sex essentialism.

What is sex essentialism, and why is it (as you seem to imply) wrong?

Now, if you would kindly describe the exact risks you are referencing, their nature and source, their mechanism?

I have already done so, but you continually ignore them.

Note below I am using the denotations of women (adult human female) and men (adult human male).

Women are sex-segregated from men in situations where close proximity in a confined or intimate space is expected. For example: in public bathrooms or prisons. Men and women did this because people were generally uncomfortable with personal activities (e.g. defecating, undressing) taking place in front of the other sex.

Males are also larger and more violent, and more likely to commit sexual assault on females than the other way around, so the segregation need is asymmetrical. It is more important to keep males out of female spaces than to keep females out of male spaces.

Note that there are only hormonal signals between the gonads and the brain so, keep that in mind.

And then justify a right to special modesty.

People have the right to modesty in intimate spaces and they don't need a reason you find justified, or any reason at all.

Many women tend to find male-bodied people in their intimate spaces distressing. They don't need to justify why to you.

If other folks have a right to be modest of their genitals in front of those you deem "men", why should I or anyone lack of it?

Men are adult human males. Humans find it less distressing to be in a state of vulnerable undress in front of members of the same sex than they would of the opposite sex. Segregating people by sex achieves a reduction in that distress.

Because I am most certainly not a man.

I'm not a woman, either...

I will not enter into a debate that will get me banned.

The state's aims and responsibilities are to protect people from material harm.

People who take abandon with the laws who are hopped up on steroids could constitute a material harm, especially for those who reject or don't get exposure to those steroids.

People who ejaculate sperms  do constitute a different material harm, especially to those who may get pregnant by them.

Those are two things that constitute a  material harm.

And, since you have decided these are the only two things that matter, those are the only two things that matter?

Neither of these things is "being a man" in my estimation.

It creates a two part heuristic that manages to get the shooter segregated in an appropriate way, a way exactly orthogonal to the material harms listed, without calling them a "man" if they express this desire.

Well we certainly can't segregate prisons by gender, as their are an infinite number of genders, because gender identity is a thought in your head.

The state has a responsibility to not encroach unduly on our liberties after all.

I think the liberty to live true to some ideal is more important than the demand that the government makes a law respecting an establishment of what you yourself consider religion.

I have no idea what you are attempting to say here. If my not believing in your god and uttering your prayers is the equivalent of 'establishing my religion', god help us with your narcissism.

Because the experiences of people were small and limited, unable to observe enough instances of the human condition to understand that the common understanding of "man" and "woman" saw would possibly exist.

Much like the invisibility of the homosexual, the invisibility of the trans person, or the nonbinary prevented it from ever being understood.

Now as we look upon it today, we can see how blind society was with respect to these fractions of it.

As we look upon it today, I see people trying to shoehorn gender identity into the spaces previously defined by sex, and pretending they serve the same purpose.

'misgendering' third parties or people who are not members of the board is not a violation

Regardless of whether or not is is a violation, you have done it, to both IIDB members and nonmembers alike. You claimed that it was not something you do, not something you have ever done.

This is false, however. You have clearly done both against members here and people elsewhere.

No. I have not done it. I have never done it. I have done it in the eyes of your religion only. I do not believe your religion.

You did the action described as "misgendering", which is to say using pronouns such as "he/him" for someone who has requested "they/them" or "she/her" or the like.

This is what misgendering is referent to and you have done exactly those things. In this thread. With relation to the subject of the OP. Repeatedly.

You've done it to me, repeatedly. Only here's the thing: you've done it knowing and believing you are misgendering me.

This has happened. That is what "misgendering" is, regardless of whether you believe it is acceptable behavior or whether others believe so.

You have done that action.

Yes, I have done the act that your religion calls 'misgendering'.

You may believe that it is "religion" such as to judge someone negatively for doing so, but it is not "religion" to use a term to denote a meaning.

You can yet again argue that what you did was not wrong, but you ought not continue trying to claim what you did was not exactly what you did.

What I've done is certainly not wrong, but it does not do what you claim. It does not ascribe a gender to somebody contra their beliefs about their own gender. It just doesn't.

It's OK to admit it. It's not ok to keep doing it, but it's OK to admit it. I've done it in the past. I may do it in the future, though I aspire not to.

It is my moral duty to keep doing what you call 'misgendering', even when, out of politeness, I might have used the wrong-sex pronouns for somebody.

But it's not OK to do something unapologetically and then claim you did not do that thing.

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

You have misgendered people, regardless of whether or not that is a "sin". Socially, it is an affront, an effort to cast people and their image of self aside in favor of your personal view of them.

Regardless of whether or not it is a "sin" it is something you do and your childish denials that you have ever done it are just that: childish.

You misunderstand. It was an analogy. I did not claim misgendering was a sin. I mean: according to you, using the correct-sexed pronouns is misgendering because pronouns refer to gender. I do not believe pronouns, in English, refer to 'gender'. That is your belief, not mine.

According to me using the pronoun counter to the one someone has requested is "misgendering". That is what I mean when I say it. It is, as far as I know, what everyone means when they say, other than you.

Then you are guilty of misgendering, and you have signalled that you intend to misgender in the future, because their are neopronouns you do not accept and will not use.

Regardless of what you or I believe about gender, you use pronouns counter to the ones requested. Not even ambiguous to, but counter to.

That is a fact.

It is a fact regardless of what either you or I find to be "the correct pronouns to use". They asked for A and you did NOT-A with respect to pronouns.

People have no right to ask for A and expect to get it.

You can invite me to your church service but I don't have to come.

Again you can argue you did nothing wrong, but you can't reasonably argue that you did not do the thing you did do.

The existence of differences in sexual development does not mean sex is not a binary

Divergence does in fact invalidate a strict binary. As it is the  stricture of the binary that is in question, especially surrounding divergent cases (such as people born with genitals more closely resembling A than B but brains and resulting behaviors and thought patterns more closely resembling B than A), it's the only pertinent fact!

Sex is a binary. There is no third gamete type, Jarhyn. Mammals cannot change sex, and there are only two reproductive strategies.

All of these things are false. Every last one.

Sex is not a binary, it's generalization of trends in minutiae.

Sex is a binary, because there are only two gamete types.

Gamete type does not enter into it except as one piece of the minutiae. Someone can produce a gamete that you would declare unsuited for it's launch mechanism.

Jarhyn, although you like to imply others do not have a sufficient reading level, you continually, repeatedly use "it's" when you mean "its".

There are myriad reproductive strategies, binary sexual, nonbinary sexual, and asexual, of biological organisms.

And mammals have a binary sexual reproductive strategy. Produce small motile gametes or large sessile ones.

And while mammals cannot change certain minutiae, certain minutiae are determined by things that we can steer towards or away before the fact of it, and all of the above may be discordant more or less from the generalized trends.

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

Sex determinism is a fairly disgusting thing to bring into "social" purposes. For "social" purposes I don't need to know any of that. It's unimportant to social ends.

On the contrary: humans instinctively recognise sex differences -- especially in adults. The phenotypical differences caused by sex were perceived by humans long before we actually understood the biology properly.

"And humans instinctively recognize "race" differences too! Especially in adults. The phenotypical differences caused by "race" were perceived long before we understood the biology properly..."

If you are now trying to claim sex is not real, good luck with that.

Your claim that because people have a vague instinctual understanding of general trends does not justify the correctness of that understanding.

I am claiming the language referred to people's understanding. Societies organised themselves around the sex binary.

 

[Jarhyn]

What is sex essentialism, and why is it (as you seem to imply) wrong

Sex essentialism is the belief that some concept of "sex" creates some essential or material reality of how one behaves or acts. It is to say "female" therefore "values modesty".

Women are sex-segregated from men in situations where close proximity in a confined or intimate space is expected

This is an "is". It does not establish "ought". Banging on about what people have done in the past does not justify doing it in either the present or the future.

people were generally uncomfortable

Except that this is not even a rule the world over. Evidence yields that this discomfort is a function of something entirely absent from the genetic template.

Again, "is" does not inform "ought".

Males are also larger and more violent

People largely effected by testosterone are  generally larger and more violent.

This does not justify treating any given individual as "larger" and "more violent", unless they, as an individual, are either larger or more violent than the norm, and it only justifies treating them as exactly as large and violent as they are, no more and no less.

Yes, I have done the act that your religion calls 'misgendering'.

Good. Now was that so hard?

What I've done is certainly not wrong, but it does not do what you claim. It does not ascribe a gender to somebody contra their beliefs about their own gender. It just doesn't.

Yes, it does. It claims in equal parts that their beliefs about their won gender are wrong, and that your beliefs about their gender are right.

The government has no right to do that, especially if you claim it is

It is my moral duty to keep doing what you call 'misgendering', even when, out of politeness, I might have used the wrong-sex pronouns for somebody

This forum must be so oppressing to your moral duties then I guess.

Thankfully, the failed tack of your moral compass does not define this place.

Then you are guilty of misgendering

Yes! I AM! How kind of you to point that out. I have fully admitted to explicit misgendering, the instance of the time I called you "she" and "her".

I apologize and continue to feel bad over having done that. It was wrong of me.

As has been discussed at long length I find that it is more than appropriate to treat someone as ambiguous, when they claim they lack gender.

It is not reasonable to assume offense when someone says "they are a great person" when they could have said "he Is a great man". Both are true statements with one being more general.

Sex is a binary, because there are only two gamete types.

Sex is not binary because as a generalization, it is a bad approximation of what is actually going on with respect to a set of loosely related and often comorbid minutiae of which the gamete produced is only a single facet of the whole.

you continually, repeatedly use "it's" when you mean "its"

No, my autocorrect has it's quirks, and as it's prone to do that and while it's not hard to go back and delete apostrophes, it's also generally not worth my time. So you'll have to deal with the it's I'm afraid.

Also of all my autocorrect's flaws, it's failure to process my omission of an apostrophe occasionally gets people to jump the shark on grammar Nazi bullshit and TROLOLOL.

And mammals have a binary sexual reproductive strategy. Produce small motile gametes or large sessile ones

Not all of us...

I know a number of people, as has been mentioned, that you would object to calling anything but women, who have done nothing of the sort. And of those you would insist as, men as well...

Not that you do a thing with those gametes anyway.

If you are now trying to claim sex is not real, good luck with that.

Sex is not real. It's an approximal simplification of something that is real, a set of largely but not necessarily comorbid traits.

Societies organised themselves around the sex binary.

Societies organized themselves around slavery and racism too. It doesn't make it fundamentally right to have done so.

 

[Metaphor]

What is sex essentialism, and why is it (as you seem to imply) wrong

Sex essentialism is the belief that some concept of "sex" creates some essential or material reality of how one behaves or acts. It is to say "female" therefore "values modesty".

Then I haven't said anything 'sex essentialist', but I do not see the problem with having said something that is sex essentialist, according to your definition. The only problem is saying something that is not true.

Women are sex-segregated from men in situations where close proximity in a confined or intimate space is expected

This is an "is". It does not establish "ought".

You asked why I thought the State segregated by sex in the first place. Don't whine when you get an answer.

Banging on about what people have done in the past does not justify doing it in either the present or the future.

I did not claim it did.

people were generally uncomfortable

Except that this is not even a rule the world over. Evidence yields that this discomfort is a function of something entirely absent from the genetic template.

Again, "is" does not inform "ought".

I think you've said that about ten thousand million billion kajillion times now. I never claimed 'is' is a justification for 'ought', so you can stop saying it.

Males are also larger and more violent

People largely effected by testosterone are  generally larger and more violent.

No. Males are larger and more violent. Giving testosterone to an adult female does not make her larger. The male sex is larger than the female sex, in humans.

This does not justify treating any given individual as "larger" and "more violent", unless they, as an individual, are either larger or more violent than the norm, and it only justifies treating them as exactly as large and violent as they are, no more and no less.

Since we do not segregate prisoners by an infinite number of variables, this is irrelevant.

Yes, I have done the act that your religion calls 'misgendering'.

Good. Now was that so hard?

I already knew I was sinning, according to the tenets of your religion.

What I've done is certainly not wrong, but it does not do what you claim. It does not ascribe a gender to somebody contra their beliefs about their own gender. It just doesn't.

Yes, it does. It claims in equal parts that their beliefs about their won gender are wrong, and that your beliefs about their gender are right.

No, it doesn't. I don't believe anything about somebody's gender when I call an adult human male, 'he'. I could not care less what his gender is. It does not cross my mind. I do not enquire about his star sign, either.

The government has no right to do that, especially if you claim it is

It is my moral duty to keep doing what you call 'misgendering', even when, out of politeness, I might have used the wrong-sex pronouns for somebody

This forum must be so oppressing to your moral duties then I guess.

This forum does restrict my ability to correctly use pronouns for other members. It does not restrict my ability to call public figures the correct pronoun, like this shooter.

If I'm wrong about that, a mod can correct me.

Then you are guilty of misgendering

Yes! I AM! How kind of you to point that out. I have fully admitted to explicit misgendering, the instance of the time I called you "she" and "her".

No. You called me, and continue to call me 'they', on purpose.

You once justified it saying 'they' does not misgender me, but perhaps you have changed your mind on that.

I apologize and continue to feel bad over having done that. It was wrong of me.

As has been discussed at long length I find that it is more than appropriate to treat someone as ambiguous, when they claim they lack gender.

So, you get to decide what my gender is by calling me 'they'?

You knew, and you have admitted this, that my pronouns are 'he' and 'him', because it is my belief that the appropriate pronouns for an adult human male are he and him. You explicitly and repeatedly ignored that.

It is not reasonable to assume offense when someone says "they are a great person" when they could have said "he Is a great man". Both are true statements with one being more general.

Jarhyn, stop telling other people when they can assume offense. And stop telling other people what words they should use. In fact, just stop dictating to other people your religion. It is tiresome in the extreme.

Sex is a binary, because there are only two gamete types.

Sex is not binary because as a generalization, it is a bad approximation of what is actually going on with respect to a set of loosely related and often comorbid minutiae of which the gamete produced is only a single facet of the whole.

Sex is binary because there are two gamete types and two reproductive strategies. That's a brute fact.

And mammals have a binary sexual reproductive strategy. Produce small motile gametes or large sessile ones

Not all of us...

Yes, all of us. You either have a body organised around producing small motile gametes or you do not have such a body. Your sex is a fixed event that happened when you were in the womb.

Sex is not real. It's an approximal simplification of something that is real, a set of largely but not necessarily comorbid traits.

Yeah. I can't say it's been a good conversation, but that sentence right there is the after-dinner mint.

Societies organised themselves around the sex binary.

Societies organized themselves around slavery and racism too. It doesn't make it fundamentally right to have done so.

I didn't say it was right or wrong. I said they did it.

Also, societies are going to continue to do it, so you better have a strong stash of copium on you.

 

[Jarhyn]

You asked why I thought the State segregated by sex in the first place

Yes, and you never answered. In reality, they segregated based on "sex" because that's as much as they could understand.

In many ways the ancient world utterly filled with things people didn't understand and made broad proclamations about.

Argument from tradition doesn't get you anywhere.

I did not claim it did.

Then bringing up the history or the fact of current segregation by sex is not germane to the conversation of what, if any, segregations are appropriate and when.

I never claimed 'is' is a justification for 'ought', so you can stop saying it.

Then your repeated whines that "segregation IS by sex" have no bearing on whether we ought segregate by sex.

Your belief is that we OUGHT segregate by sex, but you have thus far failed to found a principle where that comes from behind the source of the stinking piles you tend to leave on the floor.

Jarhyn, stop telling other people when they can assume offense

No. I will not in this case. It's simply not appropriate to demand people be more specific than they care to be, in most cases.

You either have a body organised around producing small motile gametes or you do not have such a body

The biggest failure you have accomplished to date is that you believe this. There is no purpose in nature, in biological organization. Some people produce sperms and have functional uteruses.

The part that is organized around producing gametes for some people produces some of both.

It is not A or B. Sometimes its A and B. Sometimes it's neither A nor B.

And this is entirely ignoring all the other aspects of differentiation that tend to happen among mammals, most of which are more important to existence in society than the gonads and gametes.

Your concept of sex is an oversimplification borne of not taking enough biology classes and getting it in your head that our biology is so simple.

Sex is an approximation of a set of loosely correlated minutiae and Goldbergian chemical reaction chains.

 

[Metaphor]

You asked why I thought the State segregated by sex in the first place

Yes, and you never answered.

Of course I did. You responded to my answer. My answer was:

Women are sex-segregated from men in situations where close proximity in a confined or intimate space is expected

That's why I think the State (and societies) segregated by sex. And instead of saying 'thank you for answering my question', you said 'you can't derive an ought from an is', as if I had tried to do that.

In reality, they segregated based on "sex" because that's as much as they could understand.

In many ways the ancient world utterly filled with things people didn't understand and made broad proclamations about.

Argument from tradition doesn't get you anywhere.

Yeah, you've said that about a million billion kajillion times. When I make an argument from tradition, you let me know.

I did not claim it did.

Then bringing up the history or the fact of current segregation by sex is not germane to the conversation of what, if any, segregations are appropriate and when.

Of course it is germane. Asking why prisons were segregated by sex tells us what kind of things are of concern that segregation by sex addresses.

I never claimed 'is' is a justification for 'ought', so you can stop saying it.

Then your repeated whines that "segregation IS by sex" have no bearing on whether we ought segregate by sex.

Yeah, you've said that about a million billion kajillion times.

Your belief is that we OUGHT segregate by sex, but you have thus far failed to found a principle where that comes from behind the source of the stinking piles you tend to leave on the floor.

One of the reasons is that males are larger and more violent than females, and for that reason, we should segregate men from women in intimate spaces which women cannot leave.

There are other reasons, of course.

Jarhyn, stop telling other people when they can assume offense

No. I will not in this case. It's simply not appropriate to demand people be more specific than they care to be, in most cases.

I do not understand your answer.

You either have a body organised around producing small motile gametes or you do not have such a body

The biggest failure you have accomplished to date is that you believe this. There is no purpose in nature, in biological organization. Some people produce sperms and have functional uteruses.

I did not say nature had a purpose.

The part that is organized around producing gametes for some people produces some of both.

It is not A or B. Sometimes its A and B. Sometimes it's neither A nor B.

There are disorders/differences of sexual development. None of those differences means there is not a binary. There are two gamete types, and only two.

Someone having both (if in fact they do) means they have both. 'Both' is two.

And this is entirely ignoring all the other aspects of differentiation that tend to happen among mammals, most of which are more important to existence in society than the gonads and gametes.

Your concept of sex is an oversimplification borne of not taking enough biology classes and getting it in your head that our biology is so simple.

Mammals cannot change sex. If you find me a biologist who claims otherwise, let me know.