Men wearing dresses

[Ruth Harris]

I hear what you are saying and I have a question: Is it painful for you that you might use incorrect grammar or is it difficult to know which grammar/words to correctly use for someone?

I strongly doubt that you would intentionally hurt someone's feelings. But if you say something that hurts someone else, whose pain is more important? Yours, because you are upset that you made a mistake? Or the person whose feelings you hurt?

I personally have zero problem with they/them but then I have used they/them whenever I was writing or speaking about someone whose gender I didn't know or was unknown or immaterial to whoever I was speaking to. Will I get it right always? Sometimes? when I find myself in that situation? Probably not and if I make a mistake, and it upsets the other person, I will also feel upset--because I hurt someone else. And their pain is more important than mine.

If I drop a rock on your toe and break your toe, and then feel really sorry about it, which pain is more important?: Your pain because of your broken toe which now must be x-rayed, buddy taped and will cause you to limp for weeks? Or mine because I feel bad that I accidentally broke your toe? Obviously, your pain with your broken toe is much more important. However bad I feel is on me 100%.

It is painful for me to use incorrect grammar. I am completely mortified when it happens by accident. But if I understand correctly what non binary people usually request for pronouns, I don't think it is that difficult to know what to use (they, theirs, them).

I deliberately did not rank the emotional pain on either side. There is no way to know who suffers more emotionally as that is specific to each individual. I am simply stating that the pain on both sides is real, for the circumstances mentioned, and it is just plain wrong to say that one side's pain is valid and the other side's pain is not.

As far as the broken toe incident, I was not contemplating comparing physical pain to emotional pain. But I can tell you that if you accidentally broke my toe, I would feel very bad for you if I saw you suffering emotionally because of the consequences of the accident. This has actually happened in my life; a friend accidentally shut a car door on my finger and broke it, and seeing her suffer emotionally over that made me feel very bad for her. Both of us suffered emotionally for a few days over that.

Ruth

 

[Lion IRC]

Folks can express their SOGI any way they like,
What they can do is pressure or expect me to see them the way they see themselves.

You're Napoleon Bonaparte? You're a beautiful butterfly? You're a poached egg? Your name is Caitlyn? Cool story bro.

 

[none]

[removed]

 

[Lion IRC]

[removed]

 

[Angry Floof]

But I do freely admit that to the best of my knowledge, I have never known anyone who considered themselves non binary. I also freely admit that I find it very uncomfortable to use a grammatically incorrect plural identifier in conversation when one person is the reference. I would not hesitate to tell someone who identifies as non binary that this is the case for me,

If you're not doing it purposely to disrespect them, then I doubt most people would care and would appreciate the honesty. They may or may not believe whatever you tell them about the reasoning or nature of your discomfort, though.

being a lifelong grammar fiend.

Not a grammar fiend myself, but well versed enough to spend 20+ years as a writer and editor. I have found that knowing the rules is a lot more important than actually following them. It's always a choice, often with consequences, and often the consequences are unjust and inhumane. Rules of grammar are like any other kind of rules. Rigid minds love rigid rules and open minds don't follow blindly or assume the rules are inherently good and right. Some of us think about the usefulness and fairness of rules and following authority is not in itself a worthy activity. If the rules make sense and hurt no one to follow them, then they're good rules. Until something changes and they no longer make sense or they hurt someone to follow them.

Most often, the biggest problem with rules is that authoritarians like to stick fast to rules and get very nervous and insecure when someone challenges the rules, causing those with the power to do so to force compliance without making a just and reasonable case for it.

That's the thing about rules, though. They're made up by humans. No rule is inherently good or bad, and any rule can be examined and discussed and changed when they don't well serve their original purpose.

The rules of grammar in practice change all the time, every day, everywhere, mostly slowly and mostly in ways you don't notice. No rigid set of rules can ever fully capture that, although the lexicography nerds among us make it their job to try.

So people like you are always going to be upset with people like me when I suggest that a rule isn't working for everyone.

That said, however, once again (*sigh*), we already use "they" in the singular without any problem whatsoever. Finding out that it might apply to a non binary person rather than an unknown person doesn't affect your ability to use "they" in the singular.

Of course I would try to respect their wishes but in all honesty this would be very painful for me. I realize that this may not be the case for all people, but it is true for me.

Honestly, I suspect you're exaggerating. It causes discomfort that you don't want to address, maybe. Maybe just the conversation makes you feel like someone's forcing you to do something you don't want to do. But I really doubt that using "they" in the singular as we commonly do and have done causes anyone actual pain. But I do appreciate that you're expressing essentially that you really, really don't want to do it.

What I am hearing is that my pain in using incorrect grammar is less valid than their pain in hearing sexed identifiers. That is, to be blunt, nonsense.

No, it isn't. It's embarrassingly nonsensical to claim that arbitrary rules are more important than how you treat your fellow human being.

This is just one reason I am a language fiend, or maybe more accurately, a communication fiend, and a language nerd. Actually fiend is word that I recognize you using as an exaggeration for emphasis because I'm sure you are not literally a demon or a wicked or cruel person. Your communication is clear and I like the undertone of humor in the exaggeration.

But for me, there's also a joy and a ove for language that I would like to express, so maybe I'm best described as an enthusiast, a lover of, a nerd.

Anyway, no one owns or controls language. The rules of grammar are useful and wonderful tools in many ways, but not as universal truths and or in every context. In terms of the value and meaning of language to human beings, more of a useful, even brilliant, afterthought, a tool created of happenstance that turned out to be a tool of self awareness and progress. That aspect of language alone is one that also thrills me to death to learn about and talk about.

But that is another topic entirely. The topic of using "they" in the singular to refer to non binary people is a topic of humanity and inclusiveness, and challenging a rigid status quo. And status quo means a majority of people are comfortable and see no reason to change anything for the sake of those who are not. I see a reason to challenge a status quo that marginalizes millions of people, some of whom, as you said, are friends and relatives of yours. They may not see a need for change, either, but they are still marginalized in numerous ways, and even face risks to their lives and liberty due to bigotry, now amplified after four years of trump dog whistling bigots.

So, you know, I just happen to be one of those comfortable people who chooses to make myself uncomfortable in challenging the status quo in my head, and uncomfortable in challenging other cis het white straight people to recognize people they're not used to including in their mental landscape of the world we all live in.

Yes, I should and I will do my best to not deliberately inflict emotional pain on someone who identifies as such – but that person should also respect the emotional pain inflicted on someone like me when using incorrect grammar.

Again, I'm not convinced that your pain is really pain at all, much less pain that equates to the pain of marginalization by the only society you know.

No one can unequivocally state that one pain is more valid than the other.

At the very least, you are here trying to unequivocally state that your pain is at least comparable to theirs, which I find a bit questionable, and yet you haven't said anything that reflects any understanding at all of marginalized people's pain to begin with, just that yours is equal or more.

That is why I think that a new pronoun for non binary people would be the reasonable solution.

Perhaps become more familiar with the people you are talking about before giving your comfortable, status quo derived opinion on the subject. Are you really that comfortable with offering your opinion to people who are well aware of cis het white opinions? Our society is swimming in your opinions. The people you're talking about, if you were actually talking to them or even one of them, would not be hearing anything new or innovative on this topic.

I have no doubt that some will consider this just an excuse to invalidate the suffering of non binary individuals. So be it.

I don't think it's invalidating so much as just ignoring and not really caring enough about to understand the depth and nature of whatever suffering non binary individuals experience in this cis het white society.

That is more your problem than mine since it is untrue. Using unprovoked personal attacks to promote your viewpoint will never change anyone’s mind.

I have yet to see any personal attacks in this thread unless it's one of those I haven't read yet. But I understand the defensiveness behind that claim. To be honest, I think the more you're willing to give your opinions a good socratic beating, the more you can see any previously unearthed biases and less others will be able to find them for you.

If we can’t get to the point of being able to discuss this in a respectful manner on both sides, there will never be any chance of finding a solution that works.

Ruth

Not being nice is never in and of itself a good reason to try to halt a discussion about things that matter a hell of a lot more than niceties. No one is forced to participate. You responded here for a reason. You read the thread and decided you should insert your opinion, which is your right. What were you feeling when you did that? Was it empathy for non binary people? Is it possible you responded because your inner status quo just said, "Oh, I don't fucking think so! That is ridiculous!" and not because your humanity decided that the perspectives of non binary human beings are worth bringing into your experience with the humble understanding that you don't automatically know anything about them?

Anyway, just some thoughts. As for finding a solution that works, you do not have the background or experience to contribute meaningfully to that conversation, and chances are good that you don't want to. I'm not bloody likely to change your mind, but this is for anyone else who might be reading who is not feeling attacked when having their opinions challenged.

 

[Ruth Harris]

I see no point in replying to your responses, as it is obvious to me that we will never agree. That is fine; I did not expect complete agreement from anyone. I will say, however, that you don’t know me and your opinion of what causes me true emotional pain is just that – your opinion.

But THIS statement gives me pause:

As for finding a solution that works, you do not have the background or experience to contribute meaningfully to that conversation, and chances are good that you don't want to.

I am seriously curious. Why do you flatly state that I cannot or do not want to contribute meaningfully to the conversation? In my opinion, this is a conversation that should include everyone as it will impact all of us. Do you think that only those who are non binary should have input on this?

Ruth

 

[Rhea]

My children tell me, “why you gotta stand in the way of the evolution of language, mom? Do you think the language you consider correct did not evolve from something else to the squeals and cries of people like you?” (They say this with jest and love, of course, but truth as well.)

It is painful for me to use incorrect grammar. I am completely mortified when it happens by accident. But if I understand correctly what non binary people usually request for pronouns, I don't think it is that difficult to know what to use (they, theirs, them).

You should know that YOU are the one using painfully incorrect grammar.

A brief history of singular ‘they’

Singular they has become the pronoun of choice to replace he and she in cases where the gender of the antecedent – the word the pronoun refers to – is unknown, irrelevant, or nonbinary, or where gender needs to be concealed. It’s the word we use for sentences like Everyone loves his mother.

But that’s nothing new. The Oxford English Dictionary traces singular they back to 1375, where it appears in the medieval romance William and the Werewolf. Except for the old-style language of that poem, its use of singular they to refer to an unnamed person seems very modern. Here’s the Middle English version: ‘Hastely hiȝed eche . . . þei neyȝþed so neiȝh . . . þere william & his worþi lef were liand i-fere.’ In modern English, that’s: ‘Each man hurried . . . till they drew near . . . where William and his darling were lying together.’

Since forms may exist in speech long before they’re written down, it’s likely that singular they was common even before the late fourteenth century. That makes an old form even older.

In the eighteenth century, grammarians began warning that singular they was an error because a plural pronoun can’t take a singular antecedent. They clearly forgot that singular you was a plural pronoun that had become singular as well. You functioned as a polite singular for centuries, but in the seventeenth century singular you replaced thou, thee, and thy, except for some dialect use. That change met with some resistance. In 1660, George Fox, the founder of Quakerism, wrote a whole book labeling anyone who used singular you an idiot or a fool.

Just as those of us who are “she” object to the idea that the singular “he” is appropriate to use for any gender, such as in laws and court documents, and advocate that it is indeed BAD grammar to call shes he just because the writer or speaker is too lazy to acknowledge more than the male gender.

And yet, the “they”s have an even stronger case as “they” has long been a singular pronoun - dating back hundereds of years - and it was modern grammar insurrectionists who changed it.

And singular they is well on its way to being normal and unremarkable as well. Toward the end of the twentieth century, language authorities began to approve the form. The New Oxford Dictionary of English (1998) not only accepts singular they, they also use the form in their definitions. And the New Oxford American Dictionary (Third Edition, 2010), calls singular they ‘generally accepted’ with indefinites, and ‘now common but less widely accepted’ with definite nouns, especially in formal contexts.

I, for one, am all for it because of the myriad instances when it is no one’s business at all what my gender is!

Let your pain and mortification go because it is not bad grammar, any more than using “you” as a singular is bad grammar.

 

[Rhea]

In my opinion, this is a conversation that should include everyone as it will impact all of us. Do you think that only those who are non binary should have input on this?

Ruth

I seem to recall that you are male, and use the user name Ruth. Am I mistaken in this?

 

[Angry Floof]

I see no point in replying to your responses, as it is obvious to me that we will never agree. That is fine; I did not expect complete agreement from anyone. I will say, however, that you don’t know me and your opinion of what causes me true emotional pain is just that – your opinion.

But THIS statement gives me pause:

As for finding a solution that works, you do not have the background or experience to contribute meaningfully to that conversation, and chances are good that you don't want to.

I am seriously curious. Why do you flatly state that I cannot or do not want to contribute meaningfully to the conversation? In my opinion, this is a conversation that should include everyone as it will impact all of us. Do you think that only those who are non binary should have input on this?

Ruth

I suggest you take a deep look at that question yourself, especially the part about "include everyone," for several reasons but mostly because it does not impact most of us at all, unless you think hearing voices you're not used to hearing saying things you don't like or even suggesting you use "they" in the singular as you already know how to do equates to anything like impacting your life.

I think the opinions of non binary people are the most important to the conversation, which has been my whole point from the beginning though a lot of sub points inevitably come out of that when you're talking to people who have no interest in those non binary people's opinions beyond the most fleeting and superficial glance while asserting their own.

So I'll talk to you and others here all day long about these things, but I do not talk to non binary people about things that non binary people experience or give them my opinions beyond those things I do have a background in, such as language and grammar, and also empathy.

Humility is needed, but very few people who are not excluded from the status quo are going to be bothered with that. I mean, how dare they tell us we need to humble ourselves? Who do they think they are?

But you're on the right track if you do have the courage and humility to reflect honestly on that "included" thing, and maybe about how you're not really being excluded from anything that actually impacts your life by shutting up and listening first and foremost when it comes to the voices and perspectives of marginalized, historically excluded people.

 

[Angry Floof]

This is relevant here:

 

[steve_bank]

Long hair, airings, pierced noses and tongues. Men have came far. What is the big deal with dresses? Women wear pants and dresses, in the interest of social balance and fatness men should also wear both pants and dresses. Then of course men would be shaving their legs.

Is there a sarcasm emoji?

 

[Ruth Harris]

In my opinion, this is a conversation that should include everyone as it will impact all of us. Do you think that only those who are non binary should have input on this?

Ruth

I seem to recall that you are male, and use the user name Ruth. Am I mistaken in this?

You are recalling incorrectly. I am female. I have made no secret of that but rarely point out my gender in conversations unless it is pertinent to the subject (like in this post).

I have been mistakenly called a male before, and typically I just find it amusing. Sometimes I will correct them if it seems important to the conversation and sometimes I just let it pass if it doesn’t matter. In this case, I answered because you asked a direct question of me about it.

Ruth

 

[Ruth Harris]

I see no point in replying to your responses, as it is obvious to me that we will never agree. That is fine; I did not expect complete agreement from anyone. I will say, however, that you don’t know me and your opinion of what causes me true emotional pain is just that – your opinion.

But THIS statement gives me pause:

As for finding a solution that works, you do not have the background or experience to contribute meaningfully to that conversation, and chances are good that you don't want to.

I am seriously curious. Why do you flatly state that I cannot or do not want to contribute meaningfully to the conversation? In my opinion, this is a conversation that should include everyone as it will impact all of us. Do you think that only those who are non binary should have input on this?

Ruth

I suggest you take a deep look at that question yourself, especially the part about "include everyone," for several reasons but mostly because it does not impact most of us at all, unless you think hearing voices you're not used to hearing saying things you don't like or even suggesting you use "they" in the singular as you already know how to do equates to anything like impacting your life.

I think the opinions of non binary people are the most important to the conversation, which has been my whole point from the beginning though a lot of sub points inevitably come out of that when you're talking to people who have no interest in those non binary people's opinions beyond the most fleeting and superficial glance while asserting their own.

So I'll talk to you and others here all day long about these things, but I do not talk to non binary people about things that non binary people experience or give them my opinions beyond those things I do have a background in, such as language and grammar, and also empathy.

Humility is needed, but very few people who are not excluded from the status quo are going to be bothered with that. I mean, how dare they tell us we need to humble ourselves? Who do they think they are?

But you're on the right track if you do have the courage and humility to reflect honestly on that "included" thing, and maybe about how you're not really being excluded from anything that actually impacts your life by shutting up and listening first and foremost when it comes to the voices and perspectives of marginalized, historically excluded people.

I think we are coming at this from very different viewpoints. Maybe this will clarify how I came to my personal ideas on this subject.

Over much of my working life, I have held jobs that are historically considered to be the domain of males. I worked a few years in residential construction. When I was in the field working, I never saw another female in our area doing anything similar at that time.

After a period where I worked in construction offices doing management and accounting for firms, I changed careers again to the IT field. Once again, I didn’t know of another female in our area doing this when I started.

In both of those fields, I was often denigrated by men who made it very clear that they thought women had no business doing those jobs, and many of them did their best to make me feel unwelcome or incompetent. Yes, I found it very annoying and still do to this day when it happens. But it never had the slightest impact on my self worth; I firmly believe that the problem is theirs, not mine. I did not and do not spend time demanding that they change their point of view immediately simply because it affects me personally. I did not and do not demand that everyone take offense at their attitude simply because it affects me personally. As time passes, the attitude of society changes by simply being more familiar with that particular situation. There were many, many discussions over the years about this change, and those discussions included people who were not in any way involved in either field.

That is why I think that widespread conversation is essential. Yes, we should listen to those who are impacted personally – but the conversation itself must be society wide to effect change. Each of us should be willing to listen to the other side respectfully. If no one is willing to participate in discussions, the minority will be marginalized by default.

We also cannot expect societal change when the only opinion considered valid is that of the group asking for that change. There must be an understanding on all sides of how this change will impact all people, not just one side or the other. And the only way to get to that point is for all people to be willing and able to state their personal views respectfully without being ignored or invalidated by someone who does not agree.

Ruth

 

[Toni]

I hear what you are saying and I have a question: Is it painful for you that you might use incorrect grammar or is it difficult to know which grammar/words to correctly use for someone?

I strongly doubt that you would intentionally hurt someone's feelings. But if you say something that hurts someone else, whose pain is more important? Yours, because you are upset that you made a mistake? Or the person whose feelings you hurt?

I personally have zero problem with they/them but then I have used they/them whenever I was writing or speaking about someone whose gender I didn't know or was unknown or immaterial to whoever I was speaking to. Will I get it right always? Sometimes? when I find myself in that situation? Probably not and if I make a mistake, and it upsets the other person, I will also feel upset--because I hurt someone else. And their pain is more important than mine.

If I drop a rock on your toe and break your toe, and then feel really sorry about it, which pain is more important?: Your pain because of your broken toe which now must be x-rayed, buddy taped and will cause you to limp for weeks? Or mine because I feel bad that I accidentally broke your toe? Obviously, your pain with your broken toe is much more important. However bad I feel is on me 100%.

It is painful for me to use incorrect grammar. I am completely mortified when it happens by accident. But if I understand correctly what non binary people usually request for pronouns, I don't think it is that difficult to know what to use (they, theirs, them).

I deliberately did not rank the emotional pain on either side. There is no way to know who suffers more emotionally as that is specific to each individual. I am simply stating that the pain on both sides is real, for the circumstances mentioned, and it is just plain wrong to say that one side's pain is valid and the other side's pain is not.

As far as the broken toe incident, I was not contemplating comparing physical pain to emotional pain. But I can tell you that if you accidentally broke my toe, I would feel very bad for you if I saw you suffering emotionally because of the consequences of the accident. This has actually happened in my life; a friend accidentally shut a car door on my finger and broke it, and seeing her suffer emotionally over that made me feel very bad for her. Both of us suffered emotionally for a few days over that.

Ruth

Fictional scenario:
Suppose you and I knew each other IRL for years. since I was a newlywed bride. I am recently divorced from a 20 year marriage which had become increasingly abusive--hence the divorce. We still belong to the same club/social group, whatever and still see each other and are on the same friendly terms as always. I have reverted to my own name after the divorce. You mistakenly refer to me by my former married name, which I find very painful, given the years of abuse and all that it took me to finally muster up the courage to divorce my abuser, and the risk to my personal safety prior to, during and since the divorce. My pain registers, you apologize and also feel empathy for me. But you continue to use my former married name. Not out of malice but out of habit: that's how we first knew each other. The first few times are easily a mistake. It can be difficult to remember a name change. But after a while, it seems as though you don't care very much about how much pain it gives me to be called by a name I prefer to put behind me, along with all of the abuse. I get that it's hard for you. Maybe it was your brother or cousin that I was married to and you have a hard time letting go a symbol of a family connection. I recognize that whatever loss has happened because of a change in legal status is painful for you, as well as your distress when you realize your mistake or it is pointed out to you. But that is in no way comparable to the pain I feel over the constant reminder of an abusive relationship and the role I was forced to assume in a very unhappy marriage. And after a while, with repeated accidents, it seems less like accident than like a statement of opinion: I’m the person that it was ok to abuse and who had to put on a public face to make others feel better. To protect my abuser. And it’s my fault for not being willing to keep up the charade, for insisting that I wanted to ve free to ve who and what I am, not someone’s punching bag. Whenever someone-/whenever you call me by that despised married name, it’s like you’re telling me that you know better than I do who and what I really am.

IRL, I can’t imagine you doing such a thing to a now divorced friend. But by refusing to use the pronouns someone prefers—because it makes them feel better—what you’re really saying is that your discomfort with unfamiliar language usage is more important than their feelings. And I don’t think that’s how you feel. I think that it is just hard adapt to new rules that better reflect the way other people understand themselves.

And I will note further: It really can be hard to remember to use a different name for someone when they've undergone a life changing event. But it is almost never hard to remember to call a newly married woman by her husband's name. Or at least in my observation.

I also love language and am interested in how language changes and evolves. Some newer usages really grate on me but I restrain myself when someone uses what I consider poor grammar but is simply the common usage today. One of the things I like about languages is that each language or dialect tells you something about the world view of the users. For myself, I'd prefer that my own language choices reveal that I care about people more than that I care about rules written by people long, long ago, that have changed over the years. And I especially prefer not to hurt people if I can help it.

 

[DrZoidberg]

This is relevant here:

View attachment 34142

So what? You are taking away all responsibility from the person who is affected more to regulate their emotions and think ahead, and not put themselves in these kinds of situations or understanding this about themselves and can take steps to manage their own emotions.

If we act on this and refrain from being fully honest when debating, because of the feelings of others, we're treating them as children who don't know better. How isn't that MORE insulting?

It's this kind of thinking which makes everybody hate Millennials.

It's just feelings. Getting ones feelings hurt isn't a disaster nor a big deal. In debates I think we should always gun for full honesty, no matter what.

And if we can't handle our own emotions in the conversation we can always bow out from the conversation. This is what sets children apart from adults. It's not that adults don't have feelings. They just have learned how to manage them.

 

[Angry Floof]

So what? You are taking away all responsibility from the person who is affected more to regulate their emotions and think ahead, and not put themselves in these kinds of situations or understanding this about themselves and can take steps to manage their own emotions.

If we act on this and refrain from being fully honest when debating, because of the feelings of others, we're treating them as children who don't know better. How isn't that MORE insulting?

It's this kind of thinking which makes everybody hate Millennials.

It's just feelings. Getting ones feelings hurt isn't a disaster nor a big deal. In debates I think we should always gun for full honesty, no matter what.

And if we can't handle our own emotions in the conversation we can always bow out from the conversation. This is what sets children apart from adults. It's not that adults don't have feelings. They just have learned how to manage them.

No you haven't. Having the privilege to be unfeeling toward others without consequence isn't maturity.

At this point in history there is no one more childish and unable to manage their emotions than white men being told they are not as important as they have been led to believe.

Cry, bluster, stamp your feet, blame made up enemies like "millennials" and "cancel culture," but you are being challenged and called out for your hubris, immaturity, and callousness like it or not. Your opinions about people and experiences you know nothing about are not useful or required, and your lack of humanity is your responsibility to handle if you don't want it called out. Die mad about it.

 

[Emily Lake]

Back in post #14 I wrote:

I have no problem with the singular use of "they" when the context describes a situation when the gender is unknown. By default there is an uncertainty about the particulars of the person in question. Typically that means it might be a man or a women. So that means the context is some group that cannot be defined as him or her but includes both. The plural form is therefore appropriate and carries some meaning. But in the case where the context concerns one individual there is no rational basis to use the plural "they", or "their". So who it concerns is everyone who uses the English language and follows rules of proper diction. Using "they" to refer to an individual who neither identifies as male or female is dehumanizing simply because it doesn't acknowledge that person's individuality.

Let me try to rephrase my question, since it seems that we're talking at cross-purposes.

Why do you think it's necessary to redefine pronouns from referring to a person's apparent sex (with a singular they when unknown), to referring to a person's self-perception of their internal identity?

 

[Emily Lake]

I'm just going to step in here to write that I am prejudiced about a lot of things. I hope that I am conscious of my various prejudices and that none of them are against any people. But I am certain that is not really the case.

Somewhat relevant to this discussion, it appears that now some federal documents call mothers 'birthing persons' which I find offensive and extremely upsetting.
Here's a link to an article, reprinted from the Chicago Tribune which only allows paid subscribers to read the column there: https://www.startribune.com/theres-...t-dear-old-birthing-person-of-mine/600068973/

I am happy to celebrate all individuals who help give rise to a human being by egg donation, gestation, or childbirth the word mother, and to add context where necessary for clarification: An egg donor is only the genetic mother. A gestational surrogate carried the child but is not usually genetically related to the child. Transmen who retain a uterus and choose to carry a child act as the child's mother during gestation, whatever they prefer to be called during the pregnancy or after. And if, after giving birth, they see themselves as the child's father or simply parent, no problem. But biologically, they are the mother, even if that is never mentioned again. Even if they are married to a woman who becomes the mother. Nonbinary persons who choose to carry a child are the child's mother during gestation, and often from conception onward, whatever they choose to call themselves. Those who give birth and then give the child up for adoption are still the birth mother, even if they never laid eyes on the child. Women who adopt children, be they cis or trans, are mother to the adopted child. Women who raise children, even temporarily in foster situations are nonetheless mother to those children, however fleetingly. It's more than possible to have two or more mothers! Ask any child raised in part or wholely by a stepmother or foster mother! Heck, when they were growing up, some of my kids' friends called me mom. So did some of the exchange students who lived with us. Frankly, some single fathers also act as mother to their children and that, too, should be honored just as women who act as both mother and father should be honored for assuming the paternal role.

THAT term: birthing person, has kind of broken me.

I also struggle with watching transmen who break into new public positions as the first trans woman being celebrated when so few, or no cis women have ever held that role. This is an individual who, no matter what her private struggles, benefited from all of society's benefits conferred on boys and men until she decided to act on her innermost understanding and awareness of herself and dress and present herself as the woman she is, or even have gender confirmation surgery. Ideologically, I have no problem with transgender women being as successful in their careers and lives as they can be. It just grates sometimes when a transwoman breaks a barrier that so few or no ciswomen have been able to break in a chosen career.

I fully acknowledge that I might be wrong, that it might be prejudice or even bigotry on my part.

I think they're perfectly reasonable concerns and frustrations, and that you're not at all bigoted.

For the record, I no longer use Always pads, and I won't be using Midol in the future, because both of those companies have embraced this sort of language. Always got rid of the female symbol on their packaging... even though only females use their product. Midol released a whole series of internet ads referring to their customers as "menstruators". It's insulting and dehumanizing.

 

[Emily Lake]

YEs, I am 100% certain. "Intersex" doesn't actually mean that they're in-between the sexes. They may have ambiguous genitalia, but each individual is still ONLY male or female. There is LITERALLY no alternative among humans - a single individual cannot produce both egg cells and sperm cells. It's not possible.

I don't think it's actually impossible--the key being your statement "a single individual". What if it isn't a single individual? What if the person is actually a chimera? One part is male, the other is testosterone-insensitive, could be either XX or XY. Get just the right blend and you could end up with two functional sets of anatomy downstairs.

Horrendously unlikely but I see no reason to think it's impossible. Chimeras certainly exist and I seriously doubt we even know how common it might be as most of them will not be detected. (I'm thinking of a woman arrested for welfare fraud because the DNA test came back saying the kid wasn't hers. Turns out her reproductive apparatus wasn't hers, either.)

A chimera is an amalgam of two gene sets, but is still a single individual. You'd have to have duplicate organs in order to produce both sperm and ova. You'd have to have duplicate organs in order to have both a penis and a vagina. You don't get duplication in chimerism. It's possible for a chimeric person to have some chromosomes that are male and some that are female - absolutely. But unless they are literally duplicating organs, they can't end up with two functional sets of anatomy - not as a chimera.

Maybe as conjoint twins?

 

[Emily Lake]

Again, I'm not convinced that your pain is really pain at all, much less pain that equates to the pain of marginalization by the only society you know.

Wait, what? How do you square this? On what basis have you decided that you can dismiss Ruth's pain as invalid, but consider the pain of some other random stranger to be completely valid?