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.