They/Them She/Her He/Him - as you will

[Jarhyn]

The funniest part is that even people on busses, the train, just out on the street recognize me for what I am.

Oftentimes they recognize it with derision and disbelief, but recognition all the same.

I see, @emily,

Well, it is not that she must call me a wizard. I would never demand that. I would like it if she acknowledged what I am, but I will be it with or without her acknowledgement.

I acknowledge that you are a human male who does not possess magic powers of any sort whatsoever, but who really likes to dress up in a cloak and wander around with a staff.

I reiterate, you have never once given me a standard or goalpost to knock the ball over...

While I do not have faith that you are not Lucy's twin, waiting instead to pull the goalposts rather than the ball, you are the one who needs to set the standards for belief, and in a way that is not "ha, you can't by definition do something that is definitionally impossible therefore you cannot be what you are."

Until you do that, you are just in petulant denial of what may exist, an ostrich burying her head in the proverbial sand.

You're not a goddamned wizard! You like to think of yourself as one, but you aren't! Magic is not real, you don't fucking practice it!

I absolutely refuse to kowtow to your religious beliefs. You can believe them all you want, but you have absolutely no right to force those beliefs on me or anyone else at all. You can "identify" as the second messiah for all I give a fuck... it will not actually make you the son of a nonexistent fucking god!

But hey, if you want to play that game, I fucking identify as Shiva and I have blue skin and four arms. You can't see them though, because they're invisible to mere mortals like you... but I insist that you recognize me as a literal fucking god and bow before me from this day forth. And if you fail to do so, then you're a fucking bigot who I will use my power to utterly destroy and I shall haunt your days from now to eternity!

View attachment 36586

And yet here I am successfully casting "a magic spell either to break Emily's irrational disbelief, or at least generate a large amount of amusement"

I'm only getting the byproduct of a primary fizzle, but I'm rolling with it.

You have again defined "magic" out of existence.

You have not set a goalpost.

I can easily say "by what principle of physics are your arms hidden? By what property of atomic composition and particle emission is "blue" descriptive of your skin?

You have not once told me what it is you think that I cannot do!

I can further ACCEPT that you are identity Shiva (if you really wish to demand this), to which: please beware that I will kill you by any means that an organic being may be destroyed, and to henceforth obliterate any future avatar you possess as well, or failing the ability to do so imprison your avatar in place where it will be difficult for you to cause further harm, should I ever meet you and should you refuse to yield all earthly power and submit yourself to judgement by a jury of humans of all tribes for your crimes against existence.

I offer similar to "kings" and "emperors".

I just handed a coworker a magical spell to avoid jury duty, formed of an utterance of two words.

Late edit: and still, it does indeed confuse me as to why @Emily Lake felt the need to resurrect this whole shit show of a thread, specifically just to address why she thinks I'm not a wizard, all of a sudden.

I mean, don't get me wrong, the lulz are worth it. I admit, I do enjoy being a wizard for a variety of reasons, but among them is "to fuck with people who take their beliefs too seriously". But that's more a bonus skill I didn't know I would be picking up.

 

[SigmatheZeta]

We do have to make special concessions to make sure that gender expansive kids feel as comfortable as we can make them. They are an especially vulnerable risk group. It is not unreasonable to make an extra effort to make their lives as manageable as possible. However, the right agencies to make those kinds of decisions need to be pediatric and teachers' associations. A layperson does not have the intimate knowledge of these conditions to make authoritative decisions. It is not the layperson's business to know how it's done. It's the layperson's business to know that authority has been invested in appropriate professional organizations that they trust.

I'm all for being gender expansive. Partly, that's because I view the concept of gender as deleterious in and of itself - it's confining, regressive, and harmful to expect conformity to social roles and behaviors. In my view, a little boy who likes tutus and butterfly wings should have every right to dress in frills and skip around town as any girl would. A little girl who loves climbing trees and playing cops and robbers should have every right to be rambunctious, loud, aggressive, and dominant as any boy would. Any person should be able to dress, comport, and express themselves as they feel comfortable, without judgement. For me, this is a very deeply held principle that I've had ever since I was that little girl climbing trees, making my own bow and arrow, and starting fires at the park while pretending to be an indian brave. I was, and absolutely continue to be, gender non-conforming.

My concern is that such non-conformity is no longer empowering and freeing... it is now being pathologized. That same rejection of gender roles and stereotypes that was freedom for me now risks children being given cross-sex hormones and surgeries in order to fit them into a different gender basket. Instead of tearing down the cages, we just stick them in one of the other color. And it worries me.

Part of that worry is very personal. I have a then-nephew-now niece who is, to be a bit callous "genuine transgender". Even as a child, they were fairly feminine, and had expressed that they wanted to grow up to be a woman many times. She has now transitioned, and she's much happier, and is living a good life with her partner. She waited until she was 21 before she began transitioning, even though that meant that she went through a male puberty with all that entails for her physique and voice. Her younger sibling is 16... and has never expressed any kind of dysphoria or discomfort with her body. My younger niece (and I *will* say niece here) has very recently started identifying as "trans" along with five of her close female friends. The odds of that are astronomical. She has developed back problems and shortness of breath from constantly wearing a binder over her very large breasts. She has a history of depression and anxiety, and is highly likely to be bipolar, as is her mother (my sister).

My younger niece started testosterone a few months ago... after a single one-hour session with a counselor. They did not discuss her anxiety and depression at all, they did not discuss her lack of dysphoria. Essentially, she said "I'm trans I want testosterone" and the doctor said "oh you're so brave, here you go".

I think my older niece would have been a good candidate to have cross-sex hormones during puberty. I would have supported her in that. But I deeply, sincerely, do NOT think that my younger niece is a good candidate for it at all, and I think her identification as transgender is a coping mechanism for other problems. And I am genuinely worried that she is going to be permanently and irreversibly damaged as a result of this affirmation model of care.

Despite how @Jarhyn tends to characterize me, I'm NOT AT ALL opposed to transgender people, nor am I opposed to making accommodations for transgender people. I do think that there's an ideological aspect involved in this topic though, and I dearly wish it weren't there so we could simply talk about policies and reasonable accommodations as rational adults. I don't think it's unreasonable to take a position that male prisoners with penises should not be placed in the female prison. I'd be happy to set aside a separate wing for transgender penis-havers... and I'm happy to allow post-surgical transwomen to be placed in the female prison. It seems like a very rational solution to me. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect non-medicalized teenaged transgender students to compete against their own biological sex. I don't think it's unreasonable to acknowledge that male bodies have a definite athletic advantage and that including them in female sports reduces the fairness and equality of those women. I think there are lots of ways that we can be accommodating and rational all at the same time... but the discussions so often end up firewalled to a "no debate" rhetoric that it's very frustrating.

I honestly have trouble finding your positions to be particularly problematic. No two people are quite a mirror for each other, but I have read, scanned, and picked through this post that I am replying to. I have difficulty conceiving of an argument that your positions are particularly alarming to me.

As far as your quarrel with @Jarhyn, I am not sure what to tell you. I have two other friends that I cannot allow into the same space with each other. They fight like cats. If I put them in the same place and take my eyes off of them for more than a few hours, I will find that the entire discussion has been dedicated to them flaming each other, and I am not sure exactly what to do about it. Their positions on the essentials are not all that different, in my opinion.

I have told you, I am not a prison administrator. I admire the sorts of people that are brave enough to enter that occupation. It is not a job for a hardhearted person. They need to be especially compassionate to do well in their positions. I would not exchange positions with them, and I am not sure how prepared I am to dispense advice to them on how their jobs ought to be done.

I do not care about sports. I am very sorry to any transgender people that care a lot about sports, but I do not.

Insofar as your sibling get with the psychiatric issues, I think that we need to go a little bit farther at destigmatizing therapy. As long as people think feel they are being attacked, somehow, when someone tells them that they might be candidates for therapy, the people that need it the most will continue to suffer without it. Too many people are saying "get help" as a personal attack. In many instances, it replaces, "you are an idiot," but it is also substantially more destructive to say. It is very harmful when advice that really could help many people, assuming they would follow it, is used as words of abuse against them. The way that I think of it, someone that is prone to bipolar disorder is like a high performance automobile that is more prone to breaking down, needs gentler care, and requires a higher fuel grade, not because there is anything inherently wrong with it but because its own power can overheat it. Particularly gifted and special individuals need more attention and care, not less.

Anyhow, good luck to both of your sibling get that you have discussed here.

 

[blastula]

Gays have demanded (rightfully) that their committed relationships be considered marriages, contrary to a lot of people saying they're not real marriages by definition.

Right...so, what, exactly?

If you are saying "the State should not discriminate against people by sex" I entirely agree and it's the #1 reason the State ought never have restricted the benefits of marriage to people who chose opposite-sex partners.

I am saying it's another demand to be called something others don't agree with, which is in response to what you said.

But you know what gay men never demanded of straight people? We never demanded that you look at us and call us 'straight'.

 

[blastula]

Gays have demanded (rightfully) that their committed relationships be considered marriages, contrary to a lot of people saying they're not real marriages by definition.

That does not seem to be how that debate went.

Some gay people demanded that they be allowed to marry. They did not demand that their relationships - that is, the ones that they had before gay marriage was allowed - be called 'marriage'. Well, perhaps some gay people did so, but that was not the main claim as I recall it.

You recall wrong. It was all about the definition of marriage and whether it only applied to opposite sex couples.

Some other people replied that the concept of 'marriage' in English (and the same for other languages) was such that a same-sex relationship could not be a marriage, even if laws called it so. What can I say? It seems to me that:

1. Gay relationships before gay marriage were allowed in the US were in fact not marriages, in the usual sense of the words in English. But if I'm mistaken and there was one common usage under which they were, then that would not make the statements of people who say that they were not marriages mistaken. Maybe the people saying they were marriages and the people saying they were just speaking past each other.

2. Gay relationships after gay marriages were allowed in the US (or in some of the states at first) were/are marriages in the usual sense of the words in English, provided that they actually get married in a legal fashion. That seems to be how the term 'marriage' behaves in English, at least in one of its common usages. I do not know whether there is a sense of 'marriage' common enough under which same-sex marriages are not marriages. If there is one and many conservatives usually use 'marriage' in that fashion, then those conservatives and the people who disagree with them are speaking past each other on the matter.

But the above does not affect any of the points I've been making with regards to the terms 'man', 'woman', etc., and regarding accusations of misgendering.

It does apply to anyone who says there is no analogy to gay marriage. But I have no idea if that includes you because I can make no sense of what you're trying to say about gay marriage history.

 

[Jarhyn]

Gays have demanded (rightfully) that their committed relationships be considered marriages, contrary to a lot of people saying they're not real marriages by definition.

That does not seem to be how that debate went.

Some gay people demanded that they be allowed to marry. They did not demand that their relationships - that is, the ones that they had before gay marriage was allowed - be called 'marriage'. Well, perhaps some gay people did so, but that was not the main claim as I recall it.

You recall wrong. It was all about the definition of marriage and whether it only applied to opposite sex couples.

Some other people replied that the concept of 'marriage' in English (and the same for other languages) was such that a same-sex relationship could not be a marriage, even if laws called it so. What can I say? It seems to me that:

1. Gay relationships before gay marriage were allowed in the US were in fact not marriages, in the usual sense of the words in English. But if I'm mistaken and there was one common usage under which they were, then that would not make the statements of people who say that they were not marriages mistaken. Maybe the people saying they were marriages and the people saying they were just speaking past each other.

2. Gay relationships after gay marriages were allowed in the US (or in some of the states at first) were/are marriages in the usual sense of the words in English, provided that they actually get married in a legal fashion. That seems to be how the term 'marriage' behaves in English, at least in one of its common usages. I do not know whether there is a sense of 'marriage' common enough under which same-sex marriages are not marriages. If there is one and many conservatives usually use 'marriage' in that fashion, then those conservatives and the people who disagree with them are speaking past each other on the matter.

But the above does not affect any of the points I've been making with regards to the terms 'man', 'woman', etc., and regarding accusations of misgendering.

It does apply to anyone who says there is no analogy to gay marriage. But I have no idea if that includes you because I can make no sense of what you're trying to say about gay marriage history.

They're seemingly making a linguistic/legalism argument that before gay marriage was legalized that gay people could not possibly "be married", that legal recognition made it a "marriage" even though when my husband asks me "when we got married", as a minor test, it is not the day we stood in a courthouse that he means, even if it didn't happen as a function of religion...

Really, the fact of marriage did not change, merely the legal recognition.

 

[blastula]

I don't know if he's talking about whether it was supposed to be retroactive or what, but the issue was whether same sex relationships would be legally recognized as marriages. Even after it was made legal, there were still many who didn't and don't want to go along (see Kim Davis, et al).

 

[Angra Mainyu]

You recall wrong. It was all about the definition of marriage and whether it only applied to opposite sex couples.

No, I do not recall wrong. Rather, you do not understand what I am saying.

Some other people replied that the concept of 'marriage' in English (and the same for other languages) was such that a same-sex relationship could not be a marriage, even if laws called it so. What can I say? It seems to me that:

1. Gay relationships before gay marriage were allowed in the US were in fact not marriages, in the usual sense of the words in English. But if I'm mistaken and there was one common usage under which they were, then that would not make the statements of people who say that they were not marriages mistaken. Maybe the people saying they were marriages and the people saying they were just speaking past each other.

2. Gay relationships after gay marriages were allowed in the US (or in some of the states at first) were/are marriages in the usual sense of the words in English, provided that they actually get married in a legal fashion. That seems to be how the term 'marriage' behaves in English, at least in one of its common usages. I do not know whether there is a sense of 'marriage' common enough under which same-sex marriages are not marriages. If there is one and many conservatives usually use 'marriage' in that fashion, then those conservatives and the people who disagree with them are speaking past each other on the matter.

But the above does not affect any of the points I've been making with regards to the terms 'man', 'woman', etc., and regarding accusations of misgendering.

It does apply to anyone who says there is no analogy to gay marriage. But I have no idea if that includes you because I can make no sense of what you're trying to say about gay marriage history.

Yes, you do not understand what I am saying. That much is clear, but I'm not sure how to make the points more clear to you.

Still, let me explain my position on the so-called "misgendering" - at least some key points of the part I have argued for in this thread -, and compare that to the gay marriage case, so that you can see the differences and the similarities:

1. Claims of 'misgendering' are generally false. Why? Because they imply that the claims involved are false. However, in NW-English, the language spoken by a substantial portion of native English speakers (let's add: in the US, just to make it easier), trans men are not men, and trans women are not women. These language is spoken at least by most conservatives and many feminists, which together make up a large enough portion of speakers to be consider a common language (and I would say of course by the vast majority of English speakers, but I haven't argued for that and do not need that for my points). So, people who say 'trans men are not men' and 'trans women are not women' are usually making true claims. Now this is so even if one assumes for the sake of the argument that people who sincerely claim 'trans men are men' and 'trans women are women' are also making true claims. If they are both making true claims, they are speaking in different dialects, and talking past each other. Now, the latter usage is an assumption for the sake of the argument because Woke usage of the words appears to be incoherent, but I have not argued for that here.

2. Claims that two men or two women cannot be married are probably false in English, at least on the basis of the usage I observe. Still, I am not certain of the previous assessment. It might be that a substantial portion of native English speakers in the US do use the words in a manner in which some claims are true. If this is so, well then it is. But I am pretty sure a substantial portion of native English speakers use the word 'marriage' in a sense in which the aforementioned claims are true. So, are same-sex marriages marriges? Yes, in the sense I use the words, which is a common enough sense in English, and regardless of whether there is another sense that is common enough to be regular usage.

I don't know if he's talking about whether it was supposed to be retroactive or what, but the issue was whether same sex relationships would be legally recognized as marriages. Even after it was made legal, there were still many who didn't and don't want to go along (see Kim Davis, et al).

Actually, that is a very different issue. Some same-sex relationships - those that meet some legal requirements - are in fact recognized legally as marriages. That is a different matter from the matter of whether, when some people say 'gay marriages are not marriages', they are making a true or a false claim, in English. In order for the claim to be true, there needs to be a common usage of the term 'marriage' in English in which those are indeed not marriages, even if there is another usage - there clearly is - in which they are.

 

[Emily Lake]

The funniest part is that even people on busses, the train, just out on the street recognize me for what I am.

Oftentimes they recognize it with derision and disbelief, but recognition all the same.

They recognize that you play dress up as a wizard.

Trust me, no sane person actually thinks that you are a really real for realsies wizard.

 

[Jarhyn]

The funniest part is that even people on busses, the train, just out on the street recognize me for what I am.

Oftentimes they recognize it with derision and disbelief, but recognition all the same.

They recognize that you play dress up as a wizard.

Trust me, no sane person actually thinks that you are a really real for realsies wizard.

I must work with several very insane people then, and know a fair number of very insane people, and then you are calling by this measure several people on this forum "insane" as well.

You have not given goalposts, so all you have done is insult. I asked you several times for goalposts and definitions, and you offered none. You just offered "you are ridiculous". It is an insult when offered without a goalpost, a standard, beyond your mere derision.