• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

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

Rhea

Cyborg with a Tiara
Staff member
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
13,357
Location
Recluse
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
That aside, your example illustrates the mistake in Rhea's (and now your) reasoning very well: notice that he used a behavior - roaring - as a means to ascertain whether a person was a boy or a girl, but his assessment was erroneous, and it would be a mistake to think on the basis of examples like that that the term 'boy' refers to children who roar, or is about whether a child roars. Rather, some people use roaring behavior as an indirect means of ascertaining whether a child is a boy, though they are willing to modify their assessment on the basis of more evidence.


No here is where your conclusion is flawed. They used how a person presented to be perfectly, completely comfortable in deciding on a pronoun.

And now you’re trying to fight that and claim he wasn’t comfortable with it.
But he was.

And he had all the information that you have when deciding whether you are comfortable calling a person she or he in real life.

And yet here is a whole thread of people losing their shit over a voluntary field on an anonymous message board to let people know what gender they wish to be called. And the shit-losers are trying to say, “no! I won’t! I can’t! Woe!”


By the way, as one can tell from Metaphor's posts, he is aware of the fact that humans generally can nearly always correctly ascertain the sex of a person without ever looking at the genitals. There is no point in arguing otherwise. What he is saying is that pronouns traditionally refer to sex, not to gender.


And that is just bullshit and people fail at it all the time. ALL the time.
I don’t know what rock you live under, but in addition to having it happen to me repeatedly, even when I was wearing nail polish or earring, I also *do* it all the time. I can’t tell. Happens a lot.

So your claim that people can effortlessly tell is demonstrably flawed.
I expect you make the mistake and you’re just too sure of your own flawlessness to even know it.
 

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,299
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
That aside, your example illustrates the mistake in Rhea's (and now your) reasoning very well: notice that he used a behavior - roaring - as a means to ascertain whether a person was a boy or a girl, but his assessment was erroneous, and it would be a mistake to think on the basis of examples like that that the term 'boy' refers to children who roar, or is about whether a child roars. Rather, some people use roaring behavior as an indirect means of ascertaining whether a child is a boy, though they are willing to modify their assessment on the basis of more evidence.


No here is where your conclusion is flawed. They used how a person presented to be perfectly, completely comfortable in deciding on a pronoun.

And now you’re trying to fight that and claim he wasn’t comfortable with it.
But he was.

And he had all the information that you have when deciding whether you are comfortable calling a person she or he in real life.

And yet here is a whole thread of people losing their shit over a voluntary field on an anonymous message board to let people know what gender they wish to be called. And the shit-losers are trying to say, “no! I won’t! I can’t! Woe!”


By the way, as one can tell from Metaphor's posts, he is aware of the fact that humans generally can nearly always correctly ascertain the sex of a person without ever looking at the genitals. There is no point in arguing otherwise. What he is saying is that pronouns traditionally refer to sex, not to gender.


And that is just bullshit and people fail at it all the time. ALL the time.
I don’t know what rock you live under, but in addition to having it happen to me repeatedly, even when I was wearing nail polish or earring, I also *do* it all the time. I can’t tell. Happens a lot.

So your claim that people can effortlessly tell is demonstrably flawed.
I expect you make the mistake and you’re just too sure of your own flawlessness to even know it.
No. Normal people can tell the sex of the person they are looking at and talking to, 99.9% of the time. I can tell the sex of a person over the telephone most of the time. Sometimes I'm not sure.

That you cannot do this yourself indicates that you might have a neurological difference to most people. People do not fail at it 'all the time'. They just don't. I'm sorry your experience is so atypical.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,357
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
That aside, your example illustrates the mistake in Rhea's (and now your) reasoning very well: notice that he used a behavior - roaring - as a means to ascertain whether a person was a boy or a girl, but his assessment was erroneous, and it would be a mistake to think on the basis of examples like that that the term 'boy' refers to children who roar, or is about whether a child roars. Rather, some people use roaring behavior as an indirect means of ascertaining whether a child is a boy, though they are willing to modify their assessment on the basis of more evidence.


No here is where your conclusion is flawed. They used how a person presented to be perfectly, completely comfortable in deciding on a pronoun.

And now you’re trying to fight that and claim he wasn’t comfortable with it.
But he was.

And he had all the information that you have when deciding whether you are comfortable calling a person she or he in real life.

And yet here is a whole thread of people losing their shit over a voluntary field on an anonymous message board to let people know what gender they wish to be called. And the shit-losers are trying to say, “no! I won’t! I can’t! Woe!”


By the way, as one can tell from Metaphor's posts, he is aware of the fact that humans generally can nearly always correctly ascertain the sex of a person without ever looking at the genitals. There is no point in arguing otherwise. What he is saying is that pronouns traditionally refer to sex, not to gender.


And that is just bullshit and people fail at it all the time. ALL the time.
I don’t know what rock you live under, but in addition to having it happen to me repeatedly, even when I was wearing nail polish or earring, I also *do* it all the time. I can’t tell. Happens a lot.

So your claim that people can effortlessly tell is demonstrably flawed.
I expect you make the mistake and you’re just too sure of your own flawlessness to even know it.
No. Normal people can tell the sex of the person they are looking at and talking to, 99.9% of the time.
Is this a data-driven claim that has a link or is it simply a conjecture?
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,357
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
I forgot I was not in this world but Wonderland. In this world, people have gender and sex. Babies have gender identities even if they are not aware of them.
Bullshit. I don't have a gender.

You are mistaken.

I forgot I was not in this world but Wonderland. In this world, people have gender and sex. Babies have gender identities even if they are not aware of them.
Bullshit. I don't have a gender. I have a sex, and I have a set of regressive and harmful sex-based stereotypes that society tries really hard to force onto me. But I do NOT have a gender, nor do I have a gender identity.
You are mistaken. If you have a sex, you have a gender. Gender and sex are common synonyms. It really is that simple.
 

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,299
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
That aside, your example illustrates the mistake in Rhea's (and now your) reasoning very well: notice that he used a behavior - roaring - as a means to ascertain whether a person was a boy or a girl, but his assessment was erroneous, and it would be a mistake to think on the basis of examples like that that the term 'boy' refers to children who roar, or is about whether a child roars. Rather, some people use roaring behavior as an indirect means of ascertaining whether a child is a boy, though they are willing to modify their assessment on the basis of more evidence.


No here is where your conclusion is flawed. They used how a person presented to be perfectly, completely comfortable in deciding on a pronoun.

And now you’re trying to fight that and claim he wasn’t comfortable with it.
But he was.

And he had all the information that you have when deciding whether you are comfortable calling a person she or he in real life.

And yet here is a whole thread of people losing their shit over a voluntary field on an anonymous message board to let people know what gender they wish to be called. And the shit-losers are trying to say, “no! I won’t! I can’t! Woe!”


By the way, as one can tell from Metaphor's posts, he is aware of the fact that humans generally can nearly always correctly ascertain the sex of a person without ever looking at the genitals. There is no point in arguing otherwise. What he is saying is that pronouns traditionally refer to sex, not to gender.


And that is just bullshit and people fail at it all the time. ALL the time.
I don’t know what rock you live under, but in addition to having it happen to me repeatedly, even when I was wearing nail polish or earring, I also *do* it all the time. I can’t tell. Happens a lot.

So your claim that people can effortlessly tell is demonstrably flawed.
I expect you make the mistake and you’re just too sure of your own flawlessness to even know it.
No. Normal people can tell the sex of the person they are looking at and talking to, 99.9% of the time.
Is this a data-driven claim that has a link or is it simply a conjecture?
It is my lived experience.
 

Enigma

Shaman of the Machine Spirits
Joined
Sep 16, 2002
Messages
103
Location
In the Database
Gender
Whatever I say it is.
Basic Beliefs
Nature kinda sucks. Crafting disturbingly hilarious mental images can be both fun and educational.
I forgot I was not in this world but Wonderland. In this world, people have gender and sex. Babies have gender identities even if they are not aware of them.
Bullshit. I don't have a gender. I have a sex, and I have a set of regressive and harmful sex-based stereotypes that society tries really hard to force onto me. But I do NOT have a gender, nor do I have a gender identity.
You are mistaken. If you have a sex, you have a gender. Gender and sex are common synonyms. It really is that simple.

You are claiming that gender and sex are synonyms, but the discussion about gender and sex throughout this entire thread has been predicated on the notion that they aren't the same thing.

Are you contending that gender and sex are the same thing?

If so, then what are you claiming is the solid definition of sex/gender? (i.e. Is someone male because they have male genetics and male dangly bits regardless of how they self-identify or Is someone male because of their self-identification as male regardless of whatever genetics and/or dangly bits they may or may not have?)

If not, then on what basis are you claiming that Emily Lake has a gender despite her claim otherwise? Why are you not extending her the same courtesy that has been repeatedly stated in this thread as essential to extend to everyone, namely respecting how people self identify?
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
Rhea said:
No here is where your conclusion is flawed. They used how a person presented to be perfectly, completely comfortable in deciding on a pronoun.
No, the problem with your reasoning remains the same: you are conflating the observations used to ascertain whether a person is a man or a woman (secondary sex characteristics) and/or to use a pronouns, with the properties that 'man' or 'woman' assign to a person and/or the properties those words (and the corresponding pronouns) refer to.

They intuitively (perhaps instinctively) used secondary sex characteristics as a means of ascertaining whether the person was a man or a woman, and on the basis of that, they decided what pronoun to use.


Rhea said:
And now you’re trying to fight that and claim he wasn’t comfortable with it.
But he was.
Who is "he" here?
You were talking about how people made assessments in the past (and the vast majority in the present to, but I do not need that). But suppose the person making the assessment was a man. I am not saying he was not comfortable. I am confortable assessing that an entity is a cat by looking at it. If it's a cat-looking terminator made by aliens from another planet, I will have made a mistaken assessment. But that wouldn't make me uncomfortable when making cat assessments.

Rhea said:
And he had all the information that you have when deciding whether you are comfortable calling a person she or he in real life.
Indeed. And if he had had more information, he would have changed the assessment on the basis of that further information. As I would with the terminator cat.


Rhea said:
And that is just bullshit and people fail at it all the time. ALL the time.
I don’t know what rock you live under, but in addition to having it happen to me repeatedly, even when I was wearing nail polish or earring, I also *do* it all the time. I can’t tell. Happens a lot.
"A lot" is a relative term. It happens a minuscule proportion of the times, which may be "a lot" in a population of billions. It is still a minuscule proportion. We almost always get it right, without realizing it. Errors are salient, but in nearly all cases, there is no error.


Rhea said:
So your claim that people can effortlessly tell is demonstrably flawed.
It is not, as it is not a claim that this is always so (please look at the language of my post). But even if it were, your reasoning would remain improper for the reasons I explained earlier.


Rhea said:
I expect you make the mistake and you’re just too sure of your own flawlessness to even know it.
But that's just you accusing me of believing I'm flawless, with no rational basis for your false accusation. However, even if you were correct about me out of sheer luck, your previous argument would remain improper precisely because of the reasons I pointed out. The errors in your reasoning are independent of any flaws I might have, no matter how big those flaws might be.
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
And just to clarify a point in case it was needed: my arguments and claims do not even involve a claim that pronouns are about sex or not about gender (whatever "gender" might mean), and is compatible with some mental properties playing a role. That would require further analysis of the concepts involved, using counterfactual scenarios to probe how people who speak NW-English would be disposed to use words (e.g, what if you take the brain of a woman and put it in a male rest of the body, or use future tech to bring about a metamorphosis as in some fish species, etc.).

However, regardless of whether the relevant concepts of 'man' and 'woman' involve some mental properties, the point is that the mental properties involved in trans cases do not cut it, regardless of whether others - like lived experience as a male or female - might. For example,


Suppose a human - say, Alex - identifies as a man. Alex is 25, has a vagina, uterus, ovaries, etc., no penis, testicles, etc. Alex has a mind that experienced having a vagina all through Alex's life. Alex has never experienced having a penis. Alex also still experiences that. Alex has some male-like mental properties, e.g., Alex as a kid liked to played with trucks more than with dolls, if that is a male-like mental property (which may well be).

Well, in NW-English, Alex is a woman - this is an assessment based on observations of how people use the word 'woman' in NW-English.
In other words, I am saying that the statement 'Alex is a woman' in NW-English is true. For the reasons I explained, it is not an instance of misgendering, regardless of whether further male-like mental properties - like having a mind resulting from experiencing having a penis but not a vagina all through Alex's life - would have been enough to make Alex a man in NW-English.
 

SigmatheZeta

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2021
Messages
599
Gender
she/her
Basic Beliefs
Generally, I am rooted in both ancient Epicurean and ancient Pyrrhonist sentiments, although I am somewhat sympathetic toward the intentions behind ancient Cynicism.
That aside, your example illustrates the mistake in Rhea's (and now your) reasoning very well: notice that he used a behavior - roaring - as a means to ascertain whether a person was a boy or a girl, but his assessment was erroneous, and it would be a mistake to think on the basis of examples like that that the term 'boy' refers to children who roar, or is about whether a child roars. Rather, some people use roaring behavior as an indirect means of ascertaining whether a child is a boy, though they are willing to modify their assessment on the basis of more evidence.


No here is where your conclusion is flawed. They used how a person presented to be perfectly, completely comfortable in deciding on a pronoun.

And now you’re trying to fight that and claim he wasn’t comfortable with it.
But he was.

And he had all the information that you have when deciding whether you are comfortable calling a person she or he in real life.

And yet here is a whole thread of people losing their shit over a voluntary field on an anonymous message board to let people know what gender they wish to be called. And the shit-losers are trying to say, “no! I won’t! I can’t! Woe!”


By the way, as one can tell from Metaphor's posts, he is aware of the fact that humans generally can nearly always correctly ascertain the sex of a person without ever looking at the genitals. There is no point in arguing otherwise. What he is saying is that pronouns traditionally refer to sex, not to gender.


And that is just bullshit and people fail at it all the time. ALL the time.
I don’t know what rock you live under, but in addition to having it happen to me repeatedly, even when I was wearing nail polish or earring, I also *do* it all the time. I can’t tell. Happens a lot.

So your claim that people can effortlessly tell is demonstrably flawed.
I expect you make the mistake and you’re just too sure of your own flawlessness to even know it.
I just grew my hair out and colored it petrol. Yup. Petrol. I like the color.

I noticed something interesting about estrogen. I think that it made me more attuned to colors around me. I am not sure that I saw more color, but the colors mattered to me more. For the first time, I saw the color petrol, and I was like, "I have GOT to know what I am supposed to call that color! It's amazing!" Then I picked it up and whirled it around with hearts in my eyes.

<<--------dork.

What really shocks me is how often people misgender just in order to be jerks. I can get that I don't exactly look like I am trying to dress like Miss Denmark 2021, but I know other transgender people that really dress out every day and don't even step out the door without more than I make in a week on their faces alone. They get misgendered more often than I do, which is weird because I am not even really trying.

You know it's not an accident when someone calls out "SIR!" with the same intonation that they would say "SHITHEAD" toward a transgender person that has a very expensive hair color treatment, a weekly income's worth of make-up on their face, a clearly feminine OYSTER dress, and naturally grown out nails. What is amazing to me is that someone will come up to talk to that person for no necessary reason that I can perceive at the moment.

For my own part, I have had to improve my social perception just so that I can tell whether someone is just not able to tell I am trying for female or that person is trying to be a jerk. There is a certain pompousness that comes over someone when they are calling out a slur. They look down their noses as if they were examining a cockroach on the floor.

It's kind of useful, actually, because it gives me an idea of what kind of person I am dealing with. A person that just avoids pronouns until they are sure is the genuinely polite person because they are not sure whether I am fully transgender or non-binary, which is smart. The person that gives the correct pronoun wants me to perceive them as polite, but they might be trying to get something out of me. The person that misgenders by accident and then gets a "uh-oh" sort of look when they notice that I am not exactly a sure bet is also a polite person but a little slow. The person that obliviously and happily continues misgendering is proud of their own obliviousness, and I really don't need someone that self-absorbed in their own life's narrative in MY life: they are furniture. The one that tilts their head back just to better look down their nose is a highly unpleasant individual and is probably a transphobe chiefly because it's a convenient means of showing the world how unpleasant they are. The person that goes out of their way to ask me my pronouns has actually been slighted by the unpleasant individual and definitely has an axe to grind, and I am not signing up for it until I know the whole story from several different perspectives.

It makes me feel like a bit of a super-spy.

But transphobia's real.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,357
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
That aside, your example illustrates the mistake in Rhea's (and now your) reasoning very well: notice that he used a behavior - roaring - as a means to ascertain whether a person was a boy or a girl, but his assessment was erroneous, and it would be a mistake to think on the basis of examples like that that the term 'boy' refers to children who roar, or is about whether a child roars. Rather, some people use roaring behavior as an indirect means of ascertaining whether a child is a boy, though they are willing to modify their assessment on the basis of more evidence.


No here is where your conclusion is flawed. They used how a person presented to be perfectly, completely comfortable in deciding on a pronoun.

And now you’re trying to fight that and claim he wasn’t comfortable with it.
But he was.

And he had all the information that you have when deciding whether you are comfortable calling a person she or he in real life.

And yet here is a whole thread of people losing their shit over a voluntary field on an anonymous message board to let people know what gender they wish to be called. And the shit-losers are trying to say, “no! I won’t! I can’t! Woe!”


By the way, as one can tell from Metaphor's posts, he is aware of the fact that humans generally can nearly always correctly ascertain the sex of a person without ever looking at the genitals. There is no point in arguing otherwise. What he is saying is that pronouns traditionally refer to sex, not to gender.


And that is just bullshit and people fail at it all the time. ALL the time.
I don’t know what rock you live under, but in addition to having it happen to me repeatedly, even when I was wearing nail polish or earring, I also *do* it all the time. I can’t tell. Happens a lot.

So your claim that people can effortlessly tell is demonstrably flawed.
I expect you make the mistake and you’re just too sure of your own flawlessness to even know it.
No. Normal people can tell the sex of the person they are looking at and talking to, 99.9% of the time.
Is this a data-driven claim that has a link or is it simply a conjecture?
It is my lived experience.
You have no way to verify the accuracy of your perceptions, so it may or may not be your lived experience.

But, more importantly, an anecdote does not a general fact make.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,357
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
I forgot I was not in this world but Wonderland. In this world, people have gender and sex. Babies have gender identities even if they are not aware of them.
Bullshit. I don't have a gender. I have a sex, and I have a set of regressive and harmful sex-based stereotypes that society tries really hard to force onto me. But I do NOT have a gender, nor do I have a gender identity.
You are mistaken. If you have a sex, you have a gender. Gender and sex are common synonyms. It really is that simple.

You are claiming that gender and sex are synonyms, but the discussion about gender and sex throughout this entire thread has been predicated on the notion that they aren't the same thing.

Are you contending that gender and sex are the same thing?

If so, then what are you claiming is the solid definition of sex/gender? (i.e. Is someone male because they have male genetics and male dangly bits regardless of how they self-identify or Is someone male because of their self-identification as male regardless of whatever genetics and/or dangly bits they may or may not have?)

If not, then on what basis are you claiming that Emily Lake has a gender despite her claim otherwise? Why are you not extending her the same courtesy that has been repeatedly stated in this thread as essential to extend to everyone, namely respecting how people self identify?
Claiming something to be true does make it so.

Gender identity and sex are not the same thing. Gender (which has historically meant and still does in English) and sex do mean the same thing.
 

SigmatheZeta

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2021
Messages
599
Gender
she/her
Basic Beliefs
Generally, I am rooted in both ancient Epicurean and ancient Pyrrhonist sentiments, although I am somewhat sympathetic toward the intentions behind ancient Cynicism.
I have already brought ample evidence forward that gender identity not commensurate with birth assignment is rooted in variances in the natural development of the human brain, and I have unmistakably proved that gender-affirmation is morally necessary.

I have depended chiefly upon both the published conclusions of empirical research performed by trusted scientific authorities, and I have also cited the official statements of one of the world's most respected pediatric agencies. I have carried out the duty of inquiry above and beyond the expectations of any reasonable human being.

I can bring forward that evidence again if anybody truly craves it, but I consider the matter to be settled.

Semantic pedantery over the subject is a form of trolling, and I regard it as shameful and despicable.
 

TomC

Celestial Highness
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
4,652
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
I have unmistakably proved that gender-affirmation is morally necessary.

You and I have so often disagreed that I feel a need to point out when you hit the nail on the head.
Recognizing that a competent, autonomous, adult human being might have a gender that differs from their sex is the moral choice. It's a new issue, historically speaking, but it's not difficult if given social cues. That's the reality, here and now. I don't much care about Afghanistan or the 20th century, what I care about is the people around me, here and now. Using cues to remain civil, rather than using semantics or biology to justify incivility, is the reality here in the 21st century western world. The reality is that civil conversation is far more important than parsing out technicalities of sex and gender, 95% of the time.
Tom
 

Emily Lake

Might be a replicant
Joined
Jul 7, 2014
Messages
4,235
Location
It's a desert out there
Gender
Agenderist
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
All through history, the use we have used most often is based on how someone presents because we are not privvy to their genitals.

This is misleading. It repeats the falsehood that the only way to distinguish between a male and a female human is through genital inspection. And that's simply untrue. Secondary and tertiary sex characteristics are pretty goddamned obvious, almost all the time. If a person puts a huge amount of effort into hiding or masking those characteristics, they can trick people into being uncertain or into thinking they're the opposite sex.


So, you are talking to someone who was misgendered CONSTANTLY throughout chilldhood.
You call my childhood - through my early 20s, “simply untrue.”

Your arrogance is astonishing to behold. As is your monumentally wrong claim.
Is there any point in reading any more of your post after you make such a blatantly unfactual claim?
You falling into the very small range of people who are genuinely ambiguous doesn't negate the fact that secondary and tertiary characteristics are incredibly good indicators of sex.

Extending your personal experience as if it is representative of the entire species is so far beyond fallacious, I don't even know where to begin. Using your own, personal, atypical experience in order to label my post as "unfactual" is absurd.
 

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,299
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
Recognizing that a competent, autonomous, adult human being might have a gender that differs from their sex is the moral choice.
Do you recognise, and ought society recognise, that Rachel Dolezal's internal race differs from her actual race?
 

Emily Lake

Might be a replicant
Joined
Jul 7, 2014
Messages
4,235
Location
It's a desert out there
Gender
Agenderist
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Is this a data-driven claim that has a link or is it simply a conjecture?

It's been studied repeatedly. Adults are nearly 100% accurate at sexing faces in adults. Children over about 6 are nearly, but not quite as good at sexing adults based on face alone. Children under 6 aren't very good at it, and are usually more driven by social cues than phenotypical ones - A preschooler will nearly always believe that if a person grows their hair long, they become a girl, and if they like trucks, they become a boy.

Both adults and children suck at classifying prepubescent children. Generally only a little bit better than chance, but it varies with the age of the face presented.
 

TomC

Celestial Highness
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
4,652
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
Recognizing that a competent, autonomous, adult human being might have a gender that differs from their sex is the moral choice.
Do you recognise, and ought society recognise, that Rachel Dolezal's internal race differs from her actual race?

I've replied to this several times. I'll repeat myself.

I think Ms. Dolezal was treated very badly. I consider it racist. I don't care about her genetics and I know little about her life or history. She was black enough to wind up as top dog of the Seattle branch of the NAACP(or something like that) and that's black enough for me.

Will you hear me this time, or will I have to repeat this again in a few months?
Tom
 

Emily Lake

Might be a replicant
Joined
Jul 7, 2014
Messages
4,235
Location
It's a desert out there
Gender
Agenderist
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
You are mistaken. If you have a sex, you have a gender. Gender and sex are common synonyms. It really is that simple.
If you're using the term gender as explicitly and only synonymous with sex, then I have a gender in that sense. If, however, you are using gender as a term defining an inner sense of oneself as masculine or feminine in a way that is divorced from the physically sexed body, I reject gender altogether and I do not have a gender.
 

Emily Lake

Might be a replicant
Joined
Jul 7, 2014
Messages
4,235
Location
It's a desert out there
Gender
Agenderist
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
No, the problem with your reasoning remains the same: you are conflating the observations used to ascertain whether a person is a man or a woman (secondary sex characteristics) and/or to use a pronouns, with the properties that 'man' or 'woman' assign to a person and/or the properties those words (and the corresponding pronouns) refer to.
Perhaps a slightly different approach?

I can look at an object on my kitchen counter, and to me it looks like an apple. It's mostly red with a bit of yellowish smear, it's shaped like an apple, it has a stem, and it's in a place that I would expect an apple to be. With no further information that that, I would make the very reasonable assumption that the object is an apple.

But I'd be wrong. The object is a chunk of plastic that is made to look exactly like an apple. But I can't cut it or eat it or make a pie from it. It's not actually an apple, even though it convincingly looks like an apple. I could take poetic license and refer to it as an apple, which would be fine. But if I offered someone an apple and then handed them that chunk of plastic, I shouldn't be surprised if they're a bit miffed about it.

Alternatively...

This thing that looks like a cake...
CakeLoaf.jpg

This thing that looks like a steak...
SteakCake.jpg
 

Emily Lake

Might be a replicant
Joined
Jul 7, 2014
Messages
4,235
Location
It's a desert out there
Gender
Agenderist
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
I have already brought ample evidence forward that gender identity not commensurate with birth assignment is rooted in variances in the natural development of the human brain, and I have unmistakably proved that gender-affirmation is morally necessary.

I have depended chiefly upon both the published conclusions of empirical research performed by trusted scientific authorities, and I have also cited the official statements of one of the world's most respected pediatric agencies. I have carried out the duty of inquiry above and beyond the expectations of any reasonable human being.

I can bring forward that evidence again if anybody truly craves it, but I consider the matter to be settled.

Semantic pedantery over the subject is a form of trolling, and I regard it as shameful and despicable.
I think your evidence is quite valuable, and I've never doubted that gender dysphoria is real.

I don't, however, think that every person out there who declares themself to be transgender is transgender in the same way that you are, nor that they would demonstrate those brain variances.
 

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,299
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
I've replied to this several times. I'll repeat myself.

I think Ms. Dolezal was treated very badly. I consider it racist.
That's strange. I don't consider that refusing to pretend that a white woman is black is 'racist'. Rachel Dolezal is a white woman and I'm not going to pretend I can see her otherwise.

Will you hear me this time, or will I have to repeat this again in a few months?
If what you've said is true - if you 'affirm' the race of 'trans racial' people (of which Rachel Dolezal is a prime example but not the only example) - if you believe they deserve the same respect and polite fictions that you wish to afford to transgender people - then you are a rare case that has an internally consistent set of beliefs in this space. But most people do not. I won't ask you about it again.
 

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,299
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
No, the problem with your reasoning remains the same: you are conflating the observations used to ascertain whether a person is a man or a woman (secondary sex characteristics) and/or to use a pronouns, with the properties that 'man' or 'woman' assign to a person and/or the properties those words (and the corresponding pronouns) refer to.
Perhaps a slightly different approach?

I can look at an object on my kitchen counter, and to me it looks like an apple. It's mostly red with a bit of yellowish smear, it's shaped like an apple, it has a stem, and it's in a place that I would expect an apple to be. With no further information that that, I would make the very reasonable assumption that the object is an apple.

But I'd be wrong. The object is a chunk of plastic that is made to look exactly like an apple. But I can't cut it or eat it or make a pie from it. It's not actually an apple, even though it convincingly looks like an apple. I could take poetic license and refer to it as an apple, which would be fine. But if I offered someone an apple and then handed them that chunk of plastic, I shouldn't be surprised if they're a bit miffed about it.

Alternatively...

This thing that looks like a cake...
View attachment 36387

This thing that looks like a steak...
View attachment 36386
Pet peeve: Cakes that look like a huge steak are clever and all, but I am not a sweet-tooth person, I'm a fat-salt-umami tooth person, and I don't want to bite into that and get cake. I want a steak.

I'ma make some steak for lunch I think.
 

SigmatheZeta

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2021
Messages
599
Gender
she/her
Basic Beliefs
Generally, I am rooted in both ancient Epicurean and ancient Pyrrhonist sentiments, although I am somewhat sympathetic toward the intentions behind ancient Cynicism.
I have already brought ample evidence forward that gender identity not commensurate with birth assignment is rooted in variances in the natural development of the human brain, and I have unmistakably proved that gender-affirmation is morally necessary.

I have depended chiefly upon both the published conclusions of empirical research performed by trusted scientific authorities, and I have also cited the official statements of one of the world's most respected pediatric agencies. I have carried out the duty of inquiry above and beyond the expectations of any reasonable human being.

I can bring forward that evidence again if anybody truly craves it, but I consider the matter to be settled.

Semantic pedantery over the subject is a form of trolling, and I regard it as shameful and despicable.
I think your evidence is quite valuable, and I've never doubted that gender dysphoria is real.

I don't, however, think that every person out there who declares themself to be transgender is transgender in the same way that you are, nor that they would demonstrate those brain variances.
The only way you can really get to know somebody is to get to know them.
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
SigmatheZeta said:
I have already brought ample evidence forward that gender identity not commensurate with birth assignment is rooted in variances in the natural development of the human brain, and I have unmistakably proved that gender-affirmation is morally necessary.
No, you have not shown that what you call "gender-affirmation" is morally necessary. I have shown that the accusations of misgendering and the like are generally false.

SigmatheZeta said:
I have depended chiefly upon both the published conclusions of empirical research performed by trusted scientific authorities, and I have also cited the official statements of one of the world's most respected pediatric agencies. I have carried out the duty of inquiry above and beyond the expectations of any reasonable human being.
You missed the points entirely, and then grossly misrepresented what I said, and attacked me. And when I wrote a long reply in self-defense, I find that the thread was closed 10 minutes before I can post it. I waited, but was not opened again - though there was yet another post against me.


SigmatheZeta said:
I can bring forward that evidence again if anybody truly craves it, but I consider the matter to be settled.
Your evidence misses the points I make entirely; it does not even touch them. You repeatedly fail to engage the arguments that defeat your ideology, and instead attack by other means and give some other arguments that are not relevant. But that aside, I was going to reply to your attack, and to your claims as well. I just was not allowed to do so. And yes, you can bring your irrelevant evidence again, and I will explain why it is irrelevant if I am allowed to, and keep showing why your claims of misgendering are false. But then again, if I write a reply, I may well be prevented from posting it again. It is very easy for you to get tactical rhetorical victories because your opponent is not allowed to reply to your claims and/or accusations. Even tactical rhetorical victories would be far more elusive if I were allowed to respond.

SigmatheZeta said:
Semantic pedantary over the subject is a form of trolling, and I regard it as shameful and despicable.
But no semantic pedantry was involved; instead, arguments that defeat your ideology but which neither you nor your supporters have understood or engaged - you and they just attacked arguments that have nothing to do with them.
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
SigmatheZeta said:
What really shocks me is how often people misgender just in order to be jerks. I can get that I don't exactly look like I am trying to dress like Miss Denmark 2021, but I know other transgender people that really dress out every day and don't even step out the door without more than I make in a week on their faces alone. They get misgendered more often than I do, which is weird because I am not even really trying.

They do not misgender. The make true claims. The reasons depends on the case. Usually, they are just using the words that pick the properties they care about. Some might yes do it in order to make you feel bad, perhaps as a reaction when others try to coerce them into making statements that are false and they see the trend to exclude from English the words that pick the properties they care about, namely NW-womanhood and NW-manhood.

At any rate, sure, sometimes there is an obligation to lie and tell people what they want to hear. Sometimes there isn't. It is a matter to be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

However, even when someone is doing something wrong by making true claims about whether a person is a man or a woman, it is still a false accusation to say that they are misgendering people.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,778
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
And then we come back around to the sophistry.

There are true things we can say of most people, and to do so with abandon would be clearly wrong.

Further, it is newspeak as rank as the invention IngSoc itself to deny the mutability of language to extend to useful concepts rather than the useless.

It is useless and linguistic sophistry to shoehorn biology and biological function into contexts of sociology and sociological function.

The time and place for that interface is in impending invitation for coffee after the date.

Edit: there are lots of references here to what is essentially a bait and switch.

The thing is, it isn't about how they treat you. It's about how you treat them, with respect to the ways you treat others you also do not know.

If it crushes them because they are cake shaped despite being steak looking or asking, and you handle them as a steak, that's their problem; they got what they asked for.

not giving people what they ask for, when it is unconditionally given to some regardless of complete overlap otherwise, is just the act of being a bigoted asshole.
 
Last edited:

TomC

Celestial Highness
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
4,652
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
I've replied to this several times. I'll repeat myself.

I think Ms. Dolezal was treated very badly. I consider it racist.
That's strange. I don't consider that refusing to pretend that a white woman is black is 'racist'. Rachel Dolezal is a white woman and I'm not going to pretend I can see her otherwise.

Will you hear me this time, or will I have to repeat this again in a few months?
If what you've said is true - if you 'affirm' the race of 'trans racial' people (of which Rachel Dolezal is a prime example but not the only example) - if you believe they deserve the same respect and polite fictions that you wish to afford to transgender people - then you are a rare case that has an internally consistent set of beliefs in this space. But most people do not. I won't ask you about it again.

OK. You got me. I've never cared enough about this issue to do any research at all. I just Wikied her, and yeah she's a psychotic fraudster. To me, though, it's not about race. She just doesn't grasp the distinction between what she wants to believe at the moment and reality*. Her brother, Joshua Dolezal, put it down to being raised in a "cultish" Pentecostal family.

But I still don't consider her unfortunate story particularly relevant to any given person's gender identity, or the moral issues concerning civil conversation.

Gender is an abstraction, race somewhat less so. Assuming she was also polite to me, I'd be polite to her. But since we don't have race based pronouns it wouldn't be difficult at all.

At the same time, if she got all woke black activist on my ass I'd respond in kind.
Tom

*Maybe she should run for high office, like POTUS. It's worked before.~
 

TomC

Celestial Highness
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
4,652
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
They do not misgender.

Yes they do.
Sometimes it's accidentally misgendering someone. But sometimes it's a deliberate dismissal of their humanity.

I've only been misgendered a couple of times in my life. It was always malicious.
My gender presentation is not ambiguous, especially in real life. I'm big, have a beard, and wouldn't be caught dead in female clothing. And frankly, my persona is more towards the "macho shithead" end of the gender spectrum.

Accidentally misgendering someone is quite possible when the usual cues aren't available. Such as an internet forum where people only communicate through little black marks on a glowing screen.

There are no social cues available on IIDB. Giving people the option of presenting some is what this thread is really about. Giving members an option that didn't use to exist.
Some people don't care, some people(like me) feel they've made their gender clear enough but don't care much, and some people do care a bit. Adding the gender field just makes it easier to be polite.

I once heard a description of the "Truly Refined". I think it was a reference to 19th century European aristocrats. "They are never impolite, accidentally."
Tom
 

Emily Lake

Might be a replicant
Joined
Jul 7, 2014
Messages
4,235
Location
It's a desert out there
Gender
Agenderist
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Pet peeve: Cakes that look like a huge steak are clever and all, but I am not a sweet-tooth person, I'm a fat-salt-umami tooth person, and I don't want to bite into that and get cake. I want a steak.

I'ma make some steak for lunch I think.

:D Lol, I'm with you on that preference. I'll take a steak over cake any day. I would be unhappy if my beautiful piece of porterhouse was full of dough!
 

Emily Lake

Might be a replicant
Joined
Jul 7, 2014
Messages
4,235
Location
It's a desert out there
Gender
Agenderist
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
The only way you can really get to know somebody is to get to know them.
Sure, that's generally a good approach. I'd also say "when someone shows you who they are, believe them". There are a fair number of people out there whose behavior leads me to think that there are multiple categories under the current transgender umbrella, and that perhaps different approaches are needed for different categories.

It's something that a lot of people will get bent about, but the truth is that at least some portion of people who currently identify as transgender are autogynephiles. They are men with a sexual paraphilia, who are aroused at the thought of themselves as women. They are usually (not always) attracted to females, and frequently express their paraphilia by arousal at being in female spaces.

And while it may very well anger some people here and there, I really don't think that the accommodations provided for many transgender people are appropriate to extend to autogynephilic transgender people.

A lot of people seem to have misunderstood the DSM reclassification of gender dysphoria. Many seem to take this to mean that psychologists no longer think that gender dysphoria is a mental health condition at all, and further extend that to mean that gender identity as a philosophical concept is validated by that change. But that's not actually what happened. The change in classification recognizes that gender dysphoria is a symptom, not a condition in and of itself. It is a symptom that can arise from many different underlying conditions.

Some of those conditions are neurobiological, as was demonstrated by the research you posted. I'm tickled that there's evidence to support that, I think it's fantastic. But some of those conditions are purely psychological. Gender dysphoria, in its most common form, is incredibly common among teenagers whose bodies are changing from that of a child to that of an adult, and who are experiencing the sexualization of their bodies as well as their minds, and the influence that sex has on how other people interact with you. Almost every teenage girl on the planet goes through a period of dysphoria because their puberty places significant limits on their movements, their freedoms, and their behavior.

But dysphoria can also be a deflection and a coping mechanism reflective of prior childhood trauma, or of some neuro-atypicalities that frequently pair with delays in the formation of romantic relationships.

That's all a very long way of saying that the topic of gender identity, gender dysphoria, and accommodations for transgender identifying people is complex and multifaceted, and that we all really need to be able to discuss it from different perspectives if we're going to come up with an approach that makes sense.
 

Emily Lake

Might be a replicant
Joined
Jul 7, 2014
Messages
4,235
Location
It's a desert out there
Gender
Agenderist
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Gender is an abstraction, race somewhat less so.
I don't really know how to read this.

Do you mean "gender" in the sense of artificial sex-based constraints and behavioral expectations foisted on people by society as a whole? In that case, I agree with you sort of, although I don't know that race is actually less of an abstraction. They're both abstractions, anyway.

But if you mean "gender" as a synonym for sex, I completely 100% disagree.
 

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,299
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
I've replied to this several times. I'll repeat myself.

I think Ms. Dolezal was treated very badly. I consider it racist.
That's strange. I don't consider that refusing to pretend that a white woman is black is 'racist'. Rachel Dolezal is a white woman and I'm not going to pretend I can see her otherwise.

Will you hear me this time, or will I have to repeat this again in a few months?
If what you've said is true - if you 'affirm' the race of 'trans racial' people (of which Rachel Dolezal is a prime example but not the only example) - if you believe they deserve the same respect and polite fictions that you wish to afford to transgender people - then you are a rare case that has an internally consistent set of beliefs in this space. But most people do not. I won't ask you about it again.

OK. You got me. I've never cared enough about this issue to do any research at all. I just Wikied her, and yeah she's a psychotic fraudster.
What? You didn't even know who she was or what she did?

I hate to ask you again, Tom, since you seem to be the only one to attempt to answer questions about her, but what makes Dolezal a 'psychotic fraudster'? Or rather, what behaviours and beliefs make her a psychotic fraudster that would also not apply to transgender-identified people?

To me, though, it's not about race. She just doesn't grasp the distinction between what she wants to believe at the moment and reality*.
She wants to believe she is black, and she wants others to believe she is black, to treat her as if she were black.

How does what she want, as conflicting with reality as it is, any different in substance to what transgender people want, and to what you are demanding people respect by colluding with the delusion?

Her brother, Joshua Dolezal, put it down to being raised in a "cultish" Pentecostal family.

But I still don't consider her unfortunate story particularly relevant to any given person's gender identity, or the moral issues concerning civil conversation.
But why don't you?

Gender is an abstraction, race somewhat less so.
'Gender' is certainly an 'abstraction', since a gender identity is a thought in a person's head. So, if 'gender identity' can be a thought in a person's head about what they want their sex to be, why don't you leave room for a 'race identity'?


Assuming she was also polite to me, I'd be polite to her. But since we don't have race based pronouns it wouldn't be difficult at all.
We don't, and that's a major point of difference, but it actually goes against something you said earlier. The difference between men and women is so fundamental and not at all abstract that many languages have different pronouns (and some decline nouns differently) based on it. Yet, we don't see the same thing for race. It seems to me race is even more abstract than gender identity.


At the same time, if she got all woke black activist on my ass I'd respond in kind.
Tom

*Maybe she should run for high office, like POTUS. It's worked before.~
 

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,299
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
not giving people what they ask for, when it is unconditionally given to some regardless of complete overlap otherwise, is just the act of being a bigoted asshole.
Non. Bullying others into complying with fantasy is just the act of a sadistic fuckface.
 

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,299
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
not giving people what they ask for, when it is unconditionally given to some regardless of complete overlap otherwise, is just the act of being a bigoted asshole.
Non.
If this is incorrect I'm sure you can point out how.
Pronoun usage is not 'giving people what they ask for', whether those pronouns align with gender identity or not. Your framing is mistaken.
 

TomC

Celestial Highness
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
4,652
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
I hate to ask you again, Tom, since you seem to be the only one to attempt to answer questions about her, but what makes Dolezal a 'psychotic fraudster'?
Rachel Dolezal is, at least, her third name.

She claimed her father is black.

She claimed she was sexually molested by her brother.

She smolletted the police.

Those are the first four that come to mind. Just the parts of the Rachel Dolezal story, or should I say the "Nkechi Amare Diallo" story, that come to mind.

According to Wikipedia.

I don't trust everything I read on the internet. Especially when it's about a hot button issue. But there's so much detailed information I came to the conclusion that she's a psychotic fraudster. Nothing about race or transracial anything.
I could be wrong. I dunno.
Tom
 

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,299
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
I hate to ask you again, Tom, since you seem to be the only one to attempt to answer questions about her, but what makes Dolezal a 'psychotic fraudster'?
Rachel Dolezal is, at least, her third name.
Right...so?

When transgender people get a second name, or a third name (see Veronica Ivy, nee Rachel McKinnon, nee Rhys McKinnon), is that a sign that they are psychotic fraudsters? Indeed, since trans activists have succeeded in creating a cultural proscription on deadnaming, they appear to be a lot better placed at erasing the past than Dolezal is.

She claimed her father is black.
Don't transgender males claim to be women? Why is one a fraudulent claim but not the other?

She claimed she was sexually molested by her brother.
I did not know about that claim, but if it is a false claim that is awful behaviour from Dolezal.

She smolletted the police.

Those are the first four that come to mind. Just the parts of the Rachel Dolezal story, or should I say the "Nkechi Amare Diallo" story, that come to mind.

According to Wikipedia.

I don't trust everything I read on the internet. Especially when it's about a hot button issue. But there's so much detailed information I came to the conclusion that she's a psychotic fraudster. Nothing about race or transracial anything.
I could be wrong. I dunno.
Tom
There are other people who have a transracial identity who are not Dolezal. The YouTube personality Oli London, for example. Do you believe his claim to be trans-Korean should be respected?
 

SigmatheZeta

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2021
Messages
599
Gender
she/her
Basic Beliefs
Generally, I am rooted in both ancient Epicurean and ancient Pyrrhonist sentiments, although I am somewhat sympathetic toward the intentions behind ancient Cynicism.
The only way you can really get to know somebody is to get to know them.
Sure, that's generally a good approach. I'd also say "when someone shows you who they are, believe them". There are a fair number of people out there whose behavior leads me to think that there are multiple categories under the current transgender umbrella, and that perhaps different approaches are needed for different categories.

It's something that a lot of people will get bent about, but the truth is that at least some portion of people who currently identify as transgender are autogynephiles. They are men with a sexual paraphilia, who are aroused at the thought of themselves as women. They are usually (not always) attracted to females, and frequently express their paraphilia by arousal at being in female spaces.

And while it may very well anger some people here and there, I really don't think that the accommodations provided for many transgender people are appropriate to extend to autogynephilic transgender people.

A lot of people seem to have misunderstood the DSM reclassification of gender dysphoria. Many seem to take this to mean that psychologists no longer think that gender dysphoria is a mental health condition at all, and further extend that to mean that gender identity as a philosophical concept is validated by that change. But that's not actually what happened. The change in classification recognizes that gender dysphoria is a symptom, not a condition in and of itself. It is a symptom that can arise from many different underlying conditions.

Some of those conditions are neurobiological, as was demonstrated by the research you posted. I'm tickled that there's evidence to support that, I think it's fantastic. But some of those conditions are purely psychological. Gender dysphoria, in its most common form, is incredibly common among teenagers whose bodies are changing from that of a child to that of an adult, and who are experiencing the sexualization of their bodies as well as their minds, and the influence that sex has on how other people interact with you. Almost every teenage girl on the planet goes through a period of dysphoria because their puberty places significant limits on their movements, their freedoms, and their behavior.

But dysphoria can also be a deflection and a coping mechanism reflective of prior childhood trauma, or of some neuro-atypicalities that frequently pair with delays in the formation of romantic relationships.

That's all a very long way of saying that the topic of gender identity, gender dysphoria, and accommodations for transgender identifying people is complex and multifaceted, and that we all really need to be able to discuss it from different perspectives if we're going to come up with an approach that makes sense.
According to the guy that first suggested the idea of autogynephilia, many of them are effectively asexual due to their sexual feelings being completely satisfied by actually being a woman, and as weird as it sounds, he seems to think his research supports the idea.

In my experience, actually, transgender lesbians seem to be pretty strongly attracted to other transgender lesbians. I think it is partly due to common experience bringing them together. They understand each other, so there is chemistry due to that. I'm not saying this based on any science, just based on how I've seen those relationships develop in other communities I have traveled in. It's kind of cute.

I'm attracted to...really nerdy dudes that like dragons. *nods*
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
Jarhyn said:
And then we come back around to the sophistry.
No, I keep making good arguments that you believe are sophistry. It is not the same.

Jarhyn said:
There are true things we can say of most people, and to do so with abandon would be clearly wrong.
That depends on where we say it, why, etc., but even in those cases in which saying those true things would be wrong, they would still be true things. The claims of misgendering are generally false regardless of whether the people accused of misgendering are doing something wrong by engaging in the behavior their enemies falsely characterize as 'misgendering'.

Jarhyn said:
Further, it is newspeak as rank as the invention IngSoc itself to deny the mutability of language to extend to useful concepts rather than the useless.
First, you are making stuff up about what I say. Sure, languages change. The meanings of the words change. Sometimes. And sometimes, they do not. I have argued that the meaning of 'man' and 'woman' in NW-English has not changed. No counterargument was given.

Second, the concepts of NW-woman and NW-man are of course very, very useful to nearly all of the people who use them. The concepts of W-woman and W-man are...well, assumed by me to be coherent, but only for the sake of the argument, as I wanted to focus on something simpler and more modest first.
Jarhyn said:
It is useless and linguistic sophistry to shoehorn biology and biological function into contexts of sociology and sociological function.
And again, you fail to engage my arguments.
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
TomC said:
Yes they do.
Do you have a counter to my argument, in which I support the conclusion that they do not?

I posted it earlier in the thread:


I got accusations of sophistry, but not a single serious attempt at challenging it.


TomC said:
Sometimes it's accidentally misgendering someone. But sometimes it's a deliberate dismissal of their humanity.
Or a deliberate act of self-defense, when they see they are being shamed and falsely accused when trying to use the words they pick properties they care about, like that of being a NW-woman or a NW-man.


TomC said:
I've only been misgendered a couple of times in my life. It was always malicious.
My gender presentation is not ambiguous, especially in real life. I'm big, have a beard, and wouldn't be caught dead in female clothing. And frankly, my persona is more towards the "macho shithead" end of the gender spectrum.
Right, and you are a NW-man. And calling you a woman, in NW-English, would be a false claim. Whether it would be an instance of misgendering I'm not sure. What is gender? Whether a person is a man or a woman? I think so, in NW-English. But in W-English? I do not know (I doubt there is a coherent concept in W-English, actually, but I'm assuming for the sake of the argument there is). But maybe it would be misgendering. Regardless, it would be false. But if someone in NW-English says this person is a woman, they are making a true statement - not an honest mistake, but a true statement. Words have meaning, and meaning depends on usage. And people who speak NW-English use the words in a manner such that well, that is a woman. And the definitions of 'misgender' available in dictionaries provide enough information to realize that true statements in another language - be it NW-English, Arabic, Russian or Chinese - are not instances of misgendering.
 
Last edited:

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,778
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
not giving people what they ask for, when it is unconditionally given to some regardless of complete overlap otherwise, is just the act of being a bigoted asshole.
Non.
If this is incorrect I'm sure you can point out how.
Pronoun usage is not 'giving people what they ask for', whether those pronouns align with gender identity or not. Your framing is mistaken.
Using the pronouns (and trivial 'gender game' offerings) people ask for is exactly giving people what they ask for. Trivially so.
 

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,299
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
not giving people what they ask for, when it is unconditionally given to some regardless of complete overlap otherwise, is just the act of being a bigoted asshole.
Non.
If this is incorrect I'm sure you can point out how.
Pronoun usage is not 'giving people what they ask for', whether those pronouns align with gender identity or not. Your framing is mistaken.
Using the pronouns (and trivial 'gender game' offerings) people ask for is exactly giving people what they ask for. Trivially so.
No. When I use pronouns, I am not doing it to 'give people what they ask for'. I am not doing it to be mean. I am not doing it to be kind. I am doing what accords with reality, and it is unethical of you to try to coerce me to utter things I do not believe.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,778
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
not giving people what they ask for, when it is unconditionally given to some regardless of complete overlap otherwise, is just the act of being a bigoted asshole.
Non.
If this is incorrect I'm sure you can point out how.
Pronoun usage is not 'giving people what they ask for', whether those pronouns align with gender identity or not. Your framing is mistaken.
Using the pronouns (and trivial 'gender game' offerings) people ask for is exactly giving people what they ask for. Trivially so.
No. When I use pronouns, I am not doing it to 'give people what they ask for'. I am not doing it to be mean. I am not doing it to be kind. I am doing what accords with reality, and it is unethical of you to try to coerce me to utter things I do not believe.
It is not unethical of anyone to ask anyone to use pronouns that they would use knowing NOTHING else other than.

Your intent means dick all to the effect. You can claim you are not doing it "to be mean" but there is no useful purpose for you "to be doing what you do", either. Knowing it is effectively "mean", and that you have no other useful purpose for it, this reduces your behavior to gnostic meanness whether you like that reality or not.

What accords with reality is that what you are doing is pedantic and socially destructive.
 

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,299
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
not giving people what they ask for, when it is unconditionally given to some regardless of complete overlap otherwise, is just the act of being a bigoted asshole.
Non.
If this is incorrect I'm sure you can point out how.
Pronoun usage is not 'giving people what they ask for', whether those pronouns align with gender identity or not. Your framing is mistaken.
Using the pronouns (and trivial 'gender game' offerings) people ask for is exactly giving people what they ask for. Trivially so.
No. When I use pronouns, I am not doing it to 'give people what they ask for'. I am not doing it to be mean. I am not doing it to be kind. I am doing what accords with reality, and it is unethical of you to try to coerce me to utter things I do not believe.
It is not unethical of anyone to ask anyone to use pronouns that they would use knowing NOTHING else other than.
I'm sure you'll finish this thought one day.

Your intent means dick all to the effect.
Bull fucking shit. My intent means everything.


You can claim you are not doing it "to be mean" but there is no useful purpose for you "to be doing what you do", either.
The purpose of using language that accords with reality is that language ought accord with reality.

Knowing it is effectively "mean", and that you have no other useful purpose for it,
No. It is not 'mean' to use pronouns that accord with reality.

My purpose in doing it is using language that accords with reality, and having the right to do so.

this reduces your behavior to gnostic meanness whether you like that reality or not.
I will not allow sadistic dictators to coerce me into participating and validating other people's fantasies.

That includes, by the way, not honouring your cruel mockery of gender dysphoria by claiming to be wizard gender.

What accords with reality is that what you are doing is pedantic and socially destructive.
It is breathtaking that trans activists - who encourage the mutilations of the the genitals of children - have the nerve to talk about destruction.

Gospa moja.
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
31,435
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
No. When I use pronouns, I am not doing it to 'give people what they ask for'. I am not doing it to be mean. I am not doing it to be kind. I am doing what accords with reality, and it is unethical of you to try to coerce me to utter things I do not believe.
I bet you like to tell women their babies are ugly.
 

Emily Lake

Might be a replicant
Joined
Jul 7, 2014
Messages
4,235
Location
It's a desert out there
Gender
Agenderist
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
not giving people what they ask for, when it is unconditionally given to some regardless of complete overlap otherwise, is just the act of being a bigoted asshole.
Not giving grown ups piggy back rides, when it is unconditionally given to some (children) is just the act of being a bigoted asshole?
 
Top Bottom