Good news in the pronoun wars: $400k payout for professor

[Angra Mainyu]

I also happen to be a transgender woman, and politely asserting that I am a woman has been recommended to me by three independent therapists and doctors in three different disciplines. I tend to feel more comfortable in the society of others if they refer to me as if I were a woman, and most people are willing enough to oblige.

I have been trying to discuss the matter without getting into personal matters, but that makes it difficult. But let me try to put this matter into some perspective, so that perhaps you too can try to understand how uncomfortable some of us can feel as well.

In meat space, I interact with people who adhere to different religions. I do not bring their religions up, or try to talk them out of them. I think it would be impolite in most social settings to do so. On the other hand, they also do not ask me to assert that their religion is true, or even make an indirect assertion to that effect. What if one of them did, even providing good evidence that my lack of treating them as if they were saved/immortal souls, or whatever, makes them uncomfortable in our social circle?
Well, complying with their request would make me feel uncomfortable. I would probably comply, though. But I would try to stay away from them as much as possible without suffering worse social consequences.

A request like yours, in meat space, would sound rather similar to me (or would sound similar if it were coming from a person who has not previously treated me as you did before, but even leaving that aside).

Now, let us leave meatspace aside, and consider discussion boards meant to discuss religion/ideology and similar matters. In such settings, and unlike meat space (or, for that matter, unlike most online settings), I sometimes do argue against some religions/ideologies - not often due to a lack of time (too much work unfortunately), but sometimes I do.

When I do that, I do realize - and did when I made my lenghty arguments in the past - that some people will feel uncomfortable, probably even very uncomfortable by them. For example, if I argue that the biblical creator is a Thanos-like character only more powerful and evil - equally fantastic -, some people will almost certainly get upset. And what I post on the internet will almost certainly be read at some point - not by many, but by some. I know for a fact that some people did get upset due to my arguments against Christianity, though I do not know how many or to what degree.

It is unfortunate that some people get upset, suffer, etc., as a result, but I still think it is usually proper to make a case against a religion/ideology, such as Christianity, Islam, Wokism, Marxism, etc., in a venue designed for such debates or discussions.

Now imagine a Christian were to show up here, and request that I refrained from arguing against Christianity, on account that she feels uncomfortable if I make my case. Suppose, further, that she credibly claims she would feel uncomfortable if I make my case. What to do? Well, I would be inclined to tell her that she is in the wrong place, and continue making my case. Now further imagine that the Christian in question were to not only make the above request, but asked me to additionally treat her as if she were saved, and bound for Heaven, where she will live forever with Jesus. I would definitely not be inclined at all to comply, even if she were being polite and did not have any history of hostilities towards me. In fact, complying would make me feel uncomfortable.

Can you at least see the difficulty here?

I am not arguing against Christianity now. I see it as a weak, declining religion. I'm trying to argue against the powerful, rising Woke religion/ideology. It happens that in the forum in which I want to make my case, and in which I have argued for many years, some people who debate the matter not only want me to refrain from making my case, but to actually endorse part of the religion I want to argue against, even if indirectly - while accusing me of all sorts of false things; that does not help, either.

Now, I take it you do not ask that I call me "she" and "her" because of a campaign to defend a religion. But for that matter, the Christian might not do it for that reason, either. She may well just suffer psychologically if someone tells her that, say, there is no afterlife - or even if someone fails to assert that there is an afterlife where she will be in Heaven forever.

Do you see the difficulty with that sort of request here?

Even if you were asking politely without having treated me the way have, I hope you can see the problem from my perspective.

Granted, you might say that there is a difference, because you are not asking me to say something false. But the Christian may well say the same, and that is one of the matters the debates are about.

That said, and while I do not know exactly how you or a Christian would feel, as a human I can get an idea that my arguments can make you - either the real you, or the hypothetical Christian in my scenario, or some real Christians as well - feel uncomfortable. And even my refraining to use the pronouns you want - though I do not use the ones you do not, either, by the way -, can make you feel uncomfortable too.

But can you see that your claims and those of the majority here make me feel uncomfortable too, and why this is so? (even though you clearly disagree with me on the matters at hand, you can if you want to at least partially put yourself into my shoes, assuming you had the views I do have).

Now could you imagine how compliance would make me feel?
I already have to accept Woke victory in meat space, and in the future, and perhaps Woke victory everywhere (well, not everywhere, they will not likely win in China, Iran, Saudi Arabia...but those places are clearly much worse, with worse religions/ideologies than Wokeism). This is the place where I occasionally argue against religions/ideologies, including Wokeism.

Maybe it is time for me to go. But I have been here for a long time, and I still have some attachments to the community, so that too would have a cost.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I want to reiterate, it is not misgendering that I find insulting, but what I find insulting is being demonized for caring enough about myself to point out how I prefer to be called. Being called "pronoun police" for saying "she, please," in non-hostile tones is just going too far. It is demonizing and fear-mongering.

Of course, I never called you 'pronoun police' for that. It was because of:

1. The moral condemnation of those who do not use pronouns as you like.

2. The false and unwarranted accusations against them.

 

[laughing dog]

I want to reiterate, it is not misgendering that I find insulting, but what I find insulting is being demonized for caring enough about myself to point out how I prefer to be called. Being called "pronoun police" for saying "she, please," in non-hostile tones is just going too far. It is demonizing and fear-mongering.

Of course, I never called you 'pronoun police' for that. It was because of:

1. The moral condemnation of those who do not use pronouns as you like.

2. The false and unwarranted accusations against them.

Physician, heal thyself.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Referring to a woman as a woman is just a matter of good social graces. In most quarters of western 21st Century society, this also applies to how you should discuss transgender women.

Most quarters? Where is your evidence?
But even if it is a majority. In the past, a vast majority were Christians. They were in error.

Nevertheless, even we dragons acknowledge if we have done something rude when someone points out that we have done something rude, and if we do happen to offend someone, we apologize handsomely. That is not merely a matter of good manners, but it is just caring how other people in your society feel.

No, you do not. That would be when you have done something rude and you realize you have been rude. There is a vast disagreement here about who has been rude to whom.

You are nothing like a dragon at all, though. It comes across as quite thin-skinned if you become defensive or evasive when someone only wants to gently correct you in regard to the manners they expect out of others.

Imagine a Christian were to correct me in my assessment that Yahweh is an evil super villain, and were as gentle as this.

But you are right that I am not like a dragon. My only weapon is reason. It is a very weak weapon, but it is the one I have.

You went out of your way to talk about me in the third-person, rather than in the second-person, in response to one of my posts. That is unusual behavior.

When?

As far as I can tell, in response to your posts, I called you 'you'. Second person. And in a reply to one of your posts, I said - again in second person - that in another post - not a reply to you - I had called you "SigmatheZeta", which is the name you use in this forum.

The only recent event like that I recall is TomC calling me 'it' in response to one of my posts.
ETA: I see, I didn't realize about that one. Okay, you win. I did not insult you, or misgendered you. But I failed to stop myself from speaking in English.

You are also perfectly aware that I prefer to be called "she" and "her" rather than "he" and him" as you did in that response. You really did go to a foolish amount of trouble just in order to deliver an insult.

First, you keep saying that, but I do not recall that at all. Could you provide a link, please?

Second, I know how to speak in English. I do not know how to speak in Woke English. So, it is possible that, by mistake, I may have done that once. I would not do it to insult you. In fact, that would not be an insult at all. It would be me speaking in English, as I know how to.

Now, it is true that when talking about you in replies to others, and perhaps sometimes to you, I do go out of my way to avoid the use of third person pronouns. Why? Because otherwise, I would have to choose between affirming a religion I disagree with, even if indirectly (and here, not making an assumption for the sake of the argument, I do not believe Woke English has a coherent usage here), or making a statement that would be mistakenly interpreted as a rule violation ('misgendering'), and I would likely get punished because of that, even though I would be correct.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

[removed comments on moderation]

It is time for me to say goodbye. I will not post in this forum again.

 

[Jarhyn]

And then the world got a little better as the repellant sound of sophistry echoed out and then became quiet.

Yes, the threads tend to get locked, and sometimes I am unable to respond to what is posted right before they get locked - or maybe after. It happens. People can read the threads and assess by themselves who was right. Unfortunately, nearly all will be mistaken, and on your side. But you will win. Your religion is on the rise.

Ah, the dour grapes of [snip] of religion in the marketplace of ideas.

It's interesting that, when they say "people can read and see who was right for themselves" they immediately say "but even though they will see that wasn't me, it really was me, and they are wrong!"

 

[laughing dog]

I want to reiterate, it is not misgendering that I find insulting, but what I find insulting is being demonized for caring enough about myself to point out how I prefer to be called. Being called "pronoun police" for saying "she, please," in non-hostile tones is just going too far. It is demonizing and fear-mongering.

Of course, I never called you 'pronoun police' for that. It was because of:

1. The moral condemnation of those who do not use pronouns as you like.

2. The false and unwarranted accusations against them.

Physician, heal thyself.

You have no idea how wrong you are.

Perhaps, but I do have an excellent view of your double standards.

 

[Bronzeage]

It is a bit of a mystery why some people in the civilian world want to belittle and intimidate others by using inappropriate pronouns.

It is a bit of a mystery why you think people 'in the civilian world' want to do that. You are begging the question.

Do you know why some people express hostility about using the pronoun a particular person prefers?

Yes: because it is trying to compel somebody's speech, and, in some cases, forcing them to say things they do not believe.

Is there some altruistic motive behind this kind of behavior?

It depends on what you mean by "altruism". For example, when black people fought for civil rights in America in the 1960s, they surely stood to gain personally, but other people also stood to gain.

"Trying to compel somebody's speech" is an interesting take on it. If a person chooses to demonstrate antisocial behavior,, or as I said in an earlier post, be an insufferable prick, they can expect to have a social stigma put upon them. It's really no different than when Black people fought for the civil rights and racists became to be seen as insufferable pricks.

Perhaps in a generation those who insist that misprouning people is an act of defying tyranny will be seen in the same light as those who once refused to concede that Cassius Clay is now known as Mohammed Ali. It's pretty much the same thing.

 

[Bomb#20]

It is time for me to say goodbye. I will not post in this forum again.

I'm very sorry to hear that -- you've been a rare voice for rationality. I hope you find a forum more hospitable to infidels.

 

[Bomb#20]

Some people get into a rather idiotic mode of thought in which they confuse being chastised socially with being policed.

And then some folks who tend to confuse being policed with being chastised spat some word salad and stepped in Godwin's.

I was making fun of you for answering a perfectly conventional use of the standard figurative construct "X-police" as if it were literal.

...about your meme or what some or other asshole conservative in-joke is meant to imply.

Which, Someone making reference to it in that way, IS actually anti-Semitic content, though Seinfeld itself is clearly not, as the show's producers and actors are quite openly and proudly Jewish.

Rather, the anti-Semitism stems particularly from dragging their content through some political battlefield... and using it to accuse someone of idiotic Holocaust denial or whatever mud you are trying to attach to that volley.

Since the collective will of my betters is evidently that unbelievers ought to utter religious pronouncements, I submit.

Me: O Lord, make my opponents ridiculous.

God: Way ahead of you.​

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

[removed]
So.. another closed, locked thread, closed for JAQing, started by a troll who is banned.

Go back to those hills, but be careful, they're in the shadow of a pillbox.

Or don't be careful. It'll be funny.

Yes, the threads tend to get locked, and sometimes I am unable to respond to what is posted right before they get locked - or maybe after. It happens. People can read the threads and assess by themselves who was right. Unfortunately, nearly all will be mistaken, and on your side. But you will win. Your religion is on the rise.

My emphasis there. Who was right?

This isn't about right or wrong, it is about people. It is about if we respect individuals enough to actually respect them as humans in our interactions with them, as they want to be treated based on who they know themselves to be. An adherence to having to stick with pronouns just because of inertia? That seems so short sighted.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

With deepest sympathy for the undeserved difficulties fate has saddled you with, and in the spirit of the helpfulness that you are very politely reaching out for, here is some constructive advice on social graces, which if you take to heart may help to prevent some of these awkward social situations in the future: try to cultivate in yourself an attitude of innocent-until-proven-guilty or at least of agnosticism about other people's motivations. Try to remember that you are fallible too, and when someone upsets you, his or her reason for having done it may be something other than the first and most vile motive that occurs to you. Try to think before you speak, and if what you're about to say is that the person acted for such-and-such a reason, then consider carefully whether you have solid grounds for believing that what you're about to say about that person is really true. Because if you choose to go ahead and speak about another person with reckless disregard for the truth, and your wild guess happens to be wrong, then what comes to you next will be well-deserved even if what came before was not.

The only trouble here is that transpeople are asking to be called or referenced to in a different way... and some people are reacting quite angrily to it. And the people getting upset over it... don't even know the transgendered people. So when you ask people to err on the side of caution, about whether another has made a faux pas instead of being an asshole, that is great advice... and pretty much off-topic as we are talking about assholes who can't handle change over people they don't even know.

The ultimate irony here is that assholes are demanding the right to observing strict adherence to a particular chromosome. I can call them what they are. Yet, have a problem being called an asshole.

 

[IIDB Staff]

Derail re-litigating a deleted post has been moved to ~Elsewhere

 

[SigmatheZeta]

Alright, so to be clear, I happen to be transgender, but I do not appreciate views I do not have being projected on me, which many people tend to do in ways that annoy me.

Calling me by the wrong pronoun is really just mildly annoying, and it is offensive in a "stupid dimwit" way. I mean if I am dealing with a really uneducated redneck and he is confused by my pronouns, I am not going to make too much of an issue of it because I do not stay in this world for the sake of bullying uneducated people. I present as female, and most people get it. It has really not been an issue very often in my practical, everyday life.

As I have said before, being transgender is NOT a "thought in my head." It is a neurological difference that is rooted in the combination between higher anisotropy in my occipitofrontal fasciculus, which is higher in transgender women than it is in men but not as high as it is in cis-gender women, and the same structural brain differences that are linked with my sexual orientation (I am attracted to males). I have seen some studies that give conflicting information regarding the putamen, but I think that those mostly are done on transgender women who are attracted to women, whom I suspect might actually be transgender for different reasons.

As far as I am concerned, my views are perfectly reasonable.

 

[TSwizzle]

It is time for me to say goodbye. I will not post in this forum again.

Understandable but hopefully you will reconsider and come back soon.

 

[Metaphor]

It is a bit of a mystery why some people in the civilian world want to belittle and intimidate others by using inappropriate pronouns.

It is a bit of a mystery why you think people 'in the civilian world' want to do that. You are begging the question.

Do you know why some people express hostility about using the pronoun a particular person prefers?

Yes: because it is trying to compel somebody's speech, and, in some cases, forcing them to say things they do not believe.

Is there some altruistic motive behind this kind of behavior?

It depends on what you mean by "altruism". For example, when black people fought for civil rights in America in the 1960s, they surely stood to gain personally, but other people also stood to gain.

"Trying to compel somebody's speech" is an interesting take on it. If a person chooses to demonstrate antisocial behavior,, or as I said in an earlier post, be an insufferable prick, they can expect to have a social stigma put upon them. It's really no different than when Black people fought for the civil rights and racists became to be seen as insufferable pricks.

Perhaps in a generation those who insist that misprouning people is an act of defying tyranny will be seen in the same light as those who once refused to concede that Cassius Clay is now known as Mohammed Ali. It's pretty much the same thing.

You can change your name. You can't change your sex.

 

[Bronzeage]

It is a bit of a mystery why some people in the civilian world want to belittle and intimidate others by using inappropriate pronouns.

It is a bit of a mystery why you think people 'in the civilian world' want to do that. You are begging the question.

Do you know why some people express hostility about using the pronoun a particular person prefers?

Yes: because it is trying to compel somebody's speech, and, in some cases, forcing them to say things they do not believe.

Is there some altruistic motive behind this kind of behavior?

It depends on what you mean by "altruism". For example, when black people fought for civil rights in America in the 1960s, they surely stood to gain personally, but other people also stood to gain.

"Trying to compel somebody's speech" is an interesting take on it. If a person chooses to demonstrate antisocial behavior,, or as I said in an earlier post, be an insufferable prick, they can expect to have a social stigma put upon them. It's really no different than when Black people fought for the civil rights and racists became to be seen as insufferable pricks.

Perhaps in a generation those who insist that misprouning people is an act of defying tyranny will be seen in the same light as those who once refused to concede that Cassius Clay is now known as Mohammed Ali. It's pretty much the same thing.

You can change your name. You can't change your sex.

A person with a vulva changes their name to John Robert and that's okay, but you draw the line at him and his. Got it.

 

[Bomb#20]

"Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice: What I tell you three times is true."

Woke gender ideology in a nutshell.

(moderator’s note: the two extra copies of the above-referenced post by Bronzeage were deleted as duplicates, but this joke was funny, so the mod felt compelled to make this note keeping it relevant)

 

[SigmatheZeta]

"Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice: What I tell you three times is true."

Woke gender ideology in a nutshell.

I have never in my life had anything to do with any kind of "woke" ideology. I have provided more than adequate evidence that the fact that I am transgender is based on my neurology.

Current research suggests that the affirmation of transgender people's gender identity significantly increases their chances of survival. As a consequence, it has become a matter of social protocol, in many places, to do so. This is done because suicide is considered to be an upsetting behavior, in most cultures, and a pronoun is a small price to pay for less of it. Most people call it "cheap at the price."

If I can be said to have any ideology, then that ideology is the notion that empirical evidence is necessary for any truth claim about any topic whatsoever. To imply otherwise, regarding my ideology, simply makes you objectively wrong. I have lost friends and gotten frozen out of entire communities because I would not give lip-service to Deridda and because I regard most continental philosophy as nonsense. I would not tell you that I was transgender, as a matter of objective fact, if I could not furnish you with empirical research that was accountable to peer-review.

Without empirical evidence, I would only be able to tell you what made me, personally, feel better, and I actually am an authority on my own feelings. For most people, that would be enough to justify them in calling me what I wanted to be called. I find most people to be more inclined to be nice than otherwise. Most people would call me "she" even if they did think I was cuckoo.

The fact that I am a dragon has no empirical evidence whatsoever, though. You can take my word for it or not. "Dragon" is a metaphor. You either get the metaphor, or you do not. If you do not, then it is none of your business. If you can imagine me as a little, black dragon, then you can understand things about me that you could not understand if you did not have an imagination. If you do not have an imagination, then explaining it to you is futile. If you have one, then no further explanation is necessary.

And I am really tired of hearing the term "woke." It constitutes projecting beliefs onto people that they have not espoused at all.

 

[Bomb#20]

"Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice: What I tell you three times is true."

Woke gender ideology in a nutshell.

I have never in my life had anything to do with any kind of "woke" ideology.

You are projecting. Other people besides you talk about gender, and some of them are woke ideologues, and their views are the reason Mr. Meriwether's employers chose to violate his civil rights and find themselves on the losing end of a lawsuit, and I get to talk about such people whether you feel you're of their number or not; plus, Bronzeage repeated his post three times and to expect me to just leave that lying there is to demand superhuman forbearance. When I talk about you, you'll know it.

I have provided more than adequate evidence that the fact that I am transgender is based on my neurology.

Certainly -- whether someone likes strawberries is based on neurology.

Suppose for the sake of discussion that it's possible to put a person who self-diagnoses as transman in an MRI machine and measure whether the above person has a brain neurologically closer to the average male brain or to the average female brain, and thereby confirm or refute t.a.'s self-diagnosis. Suppose some Shawnee State professor had agreed to call some student she believed to be female "Sir" on condition that said student bring her a doctor's note confirming that the student had had a brain scan done and had been found to have a male-like brain. Do you think this compromise would have satisfied the Shawnee State administrators' objections to their professor's unwillingness to take on faith a truth claim that had been offered without empirical evidence, or would they have ordered her to say "Sir" with or without a doctor's note, and reprimanded her for it anyway when she declined?

Current research suggests that the affirmation of transgender people's gender identity significantly increases their chances of survival. As a consequence, it has become a matter of social protocol, in many places, to do so.

Okay, now I'm talking about you. I've seen you in action enough times to know that you are very likely to ignore the actual meaning of the words I'm about to say and will probably accuse me of saying or meaning something completely different. So I'm cautioning you not to do that.

I do not believe your claim that the increased chances of survival you credit for the social protocol change are what actually caused the social protocol to change. I think the social protocol changed for a different reason and would have changed the same way whether it increased survival chances or not. When you say the one was "As a consequence of" the other, you're making a claim of causality, a truth claim that you have not given empirical evidence for.

Let me be very clear here. I am not disputing your claim that affirmation of transgender people's gender identity reduces suicide rates, or challenging you to provide evidence for that claim. It's your claim about what caused the social protocol change that I'm calling into question.

If I can be said to have any ideology, then that ideology is the notion that empirical evidence is necessary for any truth claim about any topic whatsoever. To imply otherwise, regarding my ideology, simply makes you objectively wrong.

Okay, now I'm not talking about you any more. Now I'm talking about me. I made no implication about your ideology. To imply otherwise regarding what I implied is objectively wrong.

The fact that I am a dragon has no empirical evidence whatsoever, though. You can take my word for it or not. "Dragon" is a metaphor.

Okay, now I'm talking about you again. Given your explanation upthread of what you're using "dragon" as a metaphor for, I don't need to take your word for it. You have presented a cornucopia of empirical evidence that you are a dragon.

And I am really tired of hearing the term "woke." It constitutes projecting beliefs onto people that they have not espoused at all.

Well, when you go into a forum with "infidels" in its name, you're running the risk that somebody out there will have imagined that means he's allowed to post even if he doesn't accept your opinions on faith. If you can point out anybody I've called "woke" who didn't espouse woke beliefs, knock yourself out.