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

[Jarhyn]

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?

It is not unconditionally given. The condition generally lies somewhere in "you are small enough to not break me and I am still untired enough to do it."

I would give piggyback rides as freely to larger, older people if they were as small as the people I otherwise would give piggyback rides to or I was sufficiently unbreakable.

I would more freely in fact, especially to people over 18, if I so could, since I do not have to limit such interactions to immediate family at that point.

I reserve the right to deny anyone piggyback rides, even within my normal conditions, who denies others pronoun usage.

 

[Metaphor]

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.

Of course I don't. I have very occasionally seen an ugly baby, but withholding my opinion on the ugliness of babies is not uttering something I don't believe. What a strange analogy for you to make.

Now, if there were a law forcing people to lie about the ugliness of babies, and compelling them to say the babies were cute when they were not, I would object to such a law.

 

[Metaphor]

I reserve the right to deny anyone piggyback rides, even within my normal conditions, who denies others pronoun usage.

Good. I reserve the right to not be forced to utter the prayers and repeat the catechism of a religion I do not believe.

 

[Jarhyn]

It is not unethical of anyone to ask anyone to use pronouns that they would use knowing NOTHING else other than.

When Jason Momoa asks to be referred to with female pronouns, I'm going to have a REALLY hard time with that.

And I'm not.

I'm going to treat them exactly like I treat any person shaped exactly like whoever it is that you are talking about who is a woman, which is to say no different from anyone else shaped like that but while saying "she" and "her".

I may ask her what being a woman means to her, and in the back of my head consider that she is not a very normal woman, and maybe she acts very mannish but that's her business.

If she is one to gawk or stare at folks who are in a place, I would tell her to mind her own business and "GET OUT!" Wherever she is at, because gawking and staring is rude.

If she was being difficult about it I would probably see first about getting someone to help with a very large person causing a ruckus and being untoward in the bathroom or whatever, and if she took issue with that and sought to prevent that removal, I would injure her as badly as would need to, to shut down her bad behavior.

Calling her "her" is easy.

 

[TomC]

Do you have a counter to my argument, in which I support the conclusion that they do not?

Yes. It's extraordinarily simple.

What you're arguing isn't false. It's irrelevant.
This thread is about maintaining civility. Biological sciences and semantics are irrelevant to the topic.

All that happened was IIDB made it possible for members to give an unambiguous social cue concerning civilized use of the "English" language, quirky and irrational as it can be.

Hundreds of posts later, it's gotten weird.

Race has nothing to do with the OP, but it keeps resurfacing. I've learned things about other members that did take me by surprise. I had no idea that Emily Lake is ungendered. I'm now embarrassed by reporting a post by Politesse. I still don't know if misgendering people who don't even know IIDB exists is a TOU violation.

It's been an interesting thread, that's for sure. We can hope that the OP, concerning civil conversation on an internet forum without obvious gender cues, has moved forward a bit.

Honestly, it never really seemed like a problem to me.

Reminds me of a friend, veteran of political battles at the municipal level in small town Indiana, saying, "The fighting is never so vicious as when the stakes are low."

Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

Do you have a counter to my argument, in which I support the conclusion that they do not?

Yes. It's extraordinarily simple.

What you're arguing isn't false. It's irrelevant.
This thread is about maintaining civility. Biological sciences and semantics are irrelevant to the topic.

All that happened was IIDB made it possible for members to give an unambiguous social cue concerning civilized use of the "English" language, quirky and irrational as it can be.

Hundreds of posts later, it's gotten weird.

Race has nothing to do with the OP, but it keeps resurfacing. I've learned things about other members that did take me by surprise. I had no idea that Emily Lake is ungendered. I'm now embarrassed by reporting a post by Politesse. I still don't know if misgendering people who don't even know IIDB exists is a TOU violation.

It's been an interesting thread, that's for sure. We can hope that the OP, concerning civil conversation on an internet forum without obvious gender cues, has moved forward a bit.

Honestly, it never really seemed like a problem to me.

Reminds me of a friend, veteran of political battles at the municipal level in small town Indiana, saying, "The fighting is never so vicious as when the stakes are low."

Tom

When people are awful when the stakes are low, I become vicious over it on account of the fact that it denotes unilateral derision. It indicates meanness and a desire to bully, acknowledged or not.

I seek to reject persistent bullying from places I otherwise enjoy, elevating them above such pettiness.

 

[Metaphor]

Do you have a counter to my argument, in which I support the conclusion that they do not?

Yes. It's extraordinarily simple.

What you're arguing isn't false. It's irrelevant.
This thread is about maintaining civility. Biological sciences and semantics are irrelevant to the topic.

All that happened was IIDB made it possible for members to give an unambiguous social cue concerning civilized use of the "English" language, quirky and irrational as it can be.

Hundreds of posts later, it's gotten weird.

Race has nothing to do with the OP, but it keeps resurfacing. I've learned things about other members that did take me by surprise. I had no idea that Emily Lake is ungendered. I'm now embarrassed by reporting a post by Politesse. I still don't know if misgendering people who don't even know IIDB exists is a TOU violation.

That still needs resolving, including 'misgendering' actual iidb posters. There is nothing in the Terms of Use that specifically points to this as a violation, and it would be better if the situation was not ambiguous.

(Contrast with the terms of use specifically forbidding calling another poster a liar).

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Yes. It's extraordinarily simple.

What you're arguing isn't false. It's irrelevant.

Given that what I'm arguing is true, it is relevant to the question of whether people are misgendering others. And that is most certainly relevant when there is a rule against misgendering people that would be enforced improperly against people not misgendering anyone.

This thread is about maintaining civility. Biological sciences and semantics are irrelevant to the topic.

It is not civil to raise false and unwarranted accusations of misgendering against people who want to use the words they have used since they were kids and which allow them to talk about properties they care about, so the points would still remain relevant if you limit the topic in that manner. (though the topic has expanded; my posts were in reply to others').

All that happened was IIDB made it possible for members to give an unambiguous social cue concerning civilized use of the "English" language, quirky and irrational as it can be.

That is not all that happened. There is enforcement at play, and false and unwarranted accusations of misgendering all around. Look at what happened in the other thread, and even - though to a lesser extent - in this one.
Additionally, what has happened is that other people raised a number of other issues, some of which are being discussed.

Hundreds of posts later, it's gotten weird.

Threads tend to be about more things that the OP. That is usual.

Race has nothing to do with the OP, but it keeps resurfacing.

It is used as an analogy, and when properly used, it has to do with one of the central matters at hand, like what is to misgender a person - or more importantly, that some things aren't it.

I've learned things about other members that did take me by surprise. I had no idea that Emily Lake is ungendered.

I think this might be a problem of miscommunication. But I haven't followed the details enough to be sure.

I still don't know if misgendering people who don't even know IIDB exists is a TOU violation.

Which goes back to my point that those are not instances of misgendering as long as they are spoken in NW-English, which is the language that some of us speak (and I would say the vast majority of English speakers as well, but I do not need that hypothesis: it is enough that NW-English is spoken by a sizable portion, say 20% of the population). And again, here the rule problem continues, if they are classified as instances of misgendering when in reality they are not.

Now, if you do not speak NW-English but W-English or some other dialect, perhaps it would be an instance of misgendering (I doubt that you do speak something like that...but I won't make a case for that, at least not yet, as there are other issues at hand to discuss first). But there is still a problem of a lack of clarity in the TOU, so good thing the issues were raised.

 

[ZiprHead]

Do you have a counter to my argument, in which I support the conclusion that they do not?

Yes. It's extraordinarily simple.

What you're arguing isn't false. It's irrelevant.
This thread is about maintaining civility. Biological sciences and semantics are irrelevant to the topic.

All that happened was IIDB made it possible for members to give an unambiguous social cue concerning civilized use of the "English" language, quirky and irrational as it can be.

Hundreds of posts later, it's gotten weird.

Race has nothing to do with the OP, but it keeps resurfacing. I've learned things about other members that did take me by surprise. I had no idea that Emily Lake is ungendered. I'm now embarrassed by reporting a post by Politesse. I still don't know if misgendering people who don't even know IIDB exists is a TOU violation.

That still needs resolving, including 'misgendering' actual iidb posters. There is nothing in the Terms of Use that specifically points to this as a violation, and it would be better if the situation was not ambiguous.

(Contrast with the terms of use specifically forbidding calling another poster a liar).

It's already been posted in this thread,

We already have a rule that deliberate misgendering is a form of goading and is not allowed. We already try to enforce that. We already have to try to manage whether something is a mistake or deliberate.

 

[Metaphor]

Do you have a counter to my argument, in which I support the conclusion that they do not?

Yes. It's extraordinarily simple.

What you're arguing isn't false. It's irrelevant.
This thread is about maintaining civility. Biological sciences and semantics are irrelevant to the topic.

All that happened was IIDB made it possible for members to give an unambiguous social cue concerning civilized use of the "English" language, quirky and irrational as it can be.

Hundreds of posts later, it's gotten weird.

Race has nothing to do with the OP, but it keeps resurfacing. I've learned things about other members that did take me by surprise. I had no idea that Emily Lake is ungendered. I'm now embarrassed by reporting a post by Politesse. I still don't know if misgendering people who don't even know IIDB exists is a TOU violation.

That still needs resolving, including 'misgendering' actual iidb posters. There is nothing in the Terms of Use that specifically points to this as a violation, and it would be better if the situation was not ambiguous.

(Contrast with the terms of use specifically forbidding calling another poster a liar).

It's already been posted in this thread,

We already have a rule that deliberate misgendering is a form of goading and is not allowed. We already try to enforce that. We already have to try to manage whether something is a mistake or deliberate.

The proscription on goading is in the terms of use, but this specific ruling about deliberate misgendering being considered as goading is not. I think since it is a rule, it should be made explicit in the terms of use, and not just posted in this thread, which is many pages long and is not a rules thread.

 

[ZiprHead]

Do you have a counter to my argument, in which I support the conclusion that they do not?

Yes. It's extraordinarily simple.

What you're arguing isn't false. It's irrelevant.
This thread is about maintaining civility. Biological sciences and semantics are irrelevant to the topic.

All that happened was IIDB made it possible for members to give an unambiguous social cue concerning civilized use of the "English" language, quirky and irrational as it can be.

Hundreds of posts later, it's gotten weird.

Race has nothing to do with the OP, but it keeps resurfacing. I've learned things about other members that did take me by surprise. I had no idea that Emily Lake is ungendered. I'm now embarrassed by reporting a post by Politesse. I still don't know if misgendering people who don't even know IIDB exists is a TOU violation.

That still needs resolving, including 'misgendering' actual iidb posters. There is nothing in the Terms of Use that specifically points to this as a violation, and it would be better if the situation was not ambiguous.

(Contrast with the terms of use specifically forbidding calling another poster a liar).

It's already been posted in this thread,

We already have a rule that deliberate misgendering is a form of goading and is not allowed. We already try to enforce that. We already have to try to manage whether something is a mistake or deliberate.

The proscription on goading is in the terms of use, but this specific ruling about deliberate misgendering being considered as goading is not. I think since it is a rule, it should be made explicit in the terms of use, and not just posted in this thread, which is many pages long and is not a rules thread.

You should take that up with the mods in Private Feedback, not in the thread.

 

[TomC]

Andrea was in actuality male. You also behaved politely and treated Andrea as if you did NOT know that they were male, as if you THOUGHT that they were female. You engaged in polite fiction for their benefit and their peace of mind. And I'm guessing that Andrea knows you were engaging in polite fiction as well, and probably appreciate it.

There are so many interesting things in this post. Stuff I had to think about before responding. I'll start with this one.

We're using some important words here in subtly different ways. I did not think of what I was doing was engaging in fiction. Andrea knew, better than anyone, that her bone structure was very masculine. (This thought crossed my mind, "Damn. What a waste. Andrew was hot!".) However, I wasn't saying what I said for her benefit. It was for my own. It was in my own interests to treat this person politely. I was responding to Andrea as a person, with quirks like we all have, in order to merit similar treatment from her. Which is exactly how she responded.

I didn't see any fiction involved. We all knew the score. There was no reason for me to mention her sex, so I didn't. She's the one who made a passing reference to "When I was Andrew...", which wasn't unclear. In this context, I don't see responding to another person's personhood as fiction. It's accepting the reality of the human situation, instead of the fiction Born Male, Always Male. That's almost always true, but not always always true.
Tom

ETA ~The context of this forum is much more like the circumstances under which I met Andrea than many other circumstances, such as work places or pickup bars or prison. So the acceptable behavior is different.~

 

[TomC]

An' ye be not a cunt, do what ye will shall be the whole of the law.

This is a kinda interesting post, concerning gender and slurring.

In Australia, cunt is an all purpose derogatory. Vague, but not particularly gendered. Here in the real world(USA) it's a very gendered derogatory. IOW, you could refer to @Metaphor as a cunt without misgendering. Referring to me as a cunt would be misgendering.

He and I are quite similar in many ways, kinda assholish gay men. But, due to the vagaries of language, the exact same word means different things depending on the cultural context.
Tom

ETA ~I can't help but notice that you filled in your gender field with a simple, unambiguous, answer you good little rule follower you. That's another subtle social cues.~

 

[Metaphor]

An' ye be not a cunt, do what ye will shall be the whole of the law.

This is a kinda interesting post, concerning gender and slurring.

In Australia, cunt is an all purpose derogatory. Vague, but not particularly gendered. Here in the real world(USA) it's a very gendered derogatory. IOW, you could refer to @Metaphor as a cunt without misgendering.

It has never occurred to me that calling somebody a cunt could be 'misgendering' them.

Referring to me as a cunt would be misgendering.

That sounds very strange to me. Do you think if somebody called you a cunt, part of the insult would be because they were calling you a woman?

He and I are quite similar in many ways, kinda assholish gay men. But, due to the vagaries of language, the exact same word means different things depending on the cultural context.

'Cunt' is a more hardcore insult. People don't generally go straight to cunt without passing through assclown, tosser, and dickhead first.

 

[TomC]

It has never occurred to me that calling somebody a cunt could be 'misgendering' them.

Because you're Australian. I think that's also true of British people. I'm really not sure about the vagaries of language in any particular society.

That sounds very strange to me. Do you think if somebody called you a cunt, part of the insult would be because they were calling you a woman?

Not exactly.
Someone might call me a dick. A macho shithead. Lots of of things, without misgendering. Cunt isn't one of them.
Similarly, you could call my mom a cunt. I'd be angry, but it wouldn't be misgendering.

'Cunt' is a more hardcore insult. People don't generally go straight to cunt without passing through assclown, tosser, and dickhead first.

Ha ha ha.
You Australians don't even know how to insult properly.

A "tosser"? Any guy who doesn't is queer.

And there's bloody few of them. Bloody rags, the whole lot. There's guys who wank, guys who lie and say they don't, and queers.

There's tons of nonsense, when it comes to idiotic insults. "Fucker" is an insult, in many contexts. But the other option is "virgin". Why not use that for an irrational insult? Almost all competent adults have fucked, somewhere sometime someone.

The irrational world of gendered pronouns and stupid insults and other language oddities is, well, .... entertaining. In a sick and twisted sort of way.
Tom

 

[Metaphor]

There's tons of nonsense, when it comes to idiotic insults. "Fucker" is an insult, in many contexts. But the other option is "virgin". Why not use that for an irrational insult? Almost all competent adults have fucked, somewhere sometime someone.

They're not nonsense, though. "Fucker" is probably a contraction of "motherfucker". But even if it's not, telling somebody to "get fucked" is not telling them to go and get laid. See "I fucked him" vs "I fucked him up".

The irrational world of gendered pronouns and stupid insults and other language oddities is, well, .... entertaining. In a sick and twisted sort of way.
Tom

There isn't anything irrational about gendered pronouns. They evolved in many languages for a reason.

 

[Rhea]

The proscription on goading is in the terms of use, but this specific ruling about deliberate misgendering being considered as goading is not. I think since it is a rule, it should be made explicit in the terms of use, and not just posted in this thread, which is many pages long and is not a rules thread.

As has been noted already, the moderation team is working on the wording and will make the update as soon as we have a consensus.

And, as has been noted already, the right place to ask about that is in the Private Feedback forum.

We hear, we agree, we are working on it.

 

[bilby]

An' ye be not a cunt, do what ye will shall be the whole of the law.

This is a kinda interesting post, concerning gender and slurring.

In Australia, cunt is an all purpose derogatory. Vague, but not particularly gendered. Here in the real world(USA) it's a very gendered derogatory. IOW, you could refer to @Metaphor as a cunt without misgendering. Referring to me as a cunt would be misgendering.

He and I are quite similar in many ways, kinda assholish gay men. But, due to the vagaries of language, the exact same word means different things depending on the cultural context.
Tom

ETA ~I can't help but notice that you filled in your gender field with a simple, unambiguous, answer you good little rule follower you. That's another subtle social cues.~

I generally provide simple and unambiguous information regarding my personal preferences when asked to do so. I am not sure that this makes me a 'rule follower', insofar as the rule I am following when doing so is entirely my own. It's more a symptom of my ASD than any kind of indication that I follow rules made by others.

And yes, obviously, profanity is culturally specific.

I am not sure that your response to my post (or your later addition to that response) has a point, other than to reiterate the bleeding obvious. Could you clarify for me whether you expect me to engage with this reply, and if so, why?

TIA.

 

[SigmatheZeta]

I am again going to repeat my final statement of the matter:

The preponderance of scientific evidence currently supports the case that transgender people are born as such and that transgender people have a clinically legitimate interest in seeking gender-affirmation.

Semantic pedantry constitutes trolling. Semantic arguments about gender constitutes as much of a pseudoscience as racist arguments based on phreneology. Word games will not cause me to stop existing. Word games will not cause transgender kids to stop killing themselves because their families will literally batter their own children in order to make a political statement. Transphobic pseudoscience is like any other destructive pseudoscience, and I regard it as a particularly destructive form of hate speech.

There is no credible argument for considering transphobic pseudoscience to be valid in polite conversation.

 

[Metaphor]

I am again going to repeat my final statement of the matter:

The preponderance of scientific evidence currently supports the case that transgender people are born as such and that transgender people have a clinically legitimate interest in seeking gender-affirmation.

Semantic pedantry constitutes trolling.

No. Telling people 'your concerns about uttering the prayers of somebody else's religion is trolling', is gaslighting.

Semantic arguments about gender constitutes as much of a pseudoscience as racist arguments based on phreneology. Word games will not cause me to stop existing.

The word games that trans activists play don't change reality. The daily mutilation and sterilisation of children that trans activists endorse are not 'word games'. They are State-endorsed violence against unconsenting bodies.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

No. Pronouns are like a name. You don't get to choose their name, you don't get to choose their pronouns. Deliberately calling someone by the wrong pronoun is the same as deliberately calling them by the wrong name.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

An' ye be not a cunt, do what ye will shall be the whole of the law.

This is a kinda interesting post, concerning gender and slurring.

In Australia, cunt is an all purpose derogatory. Vague, but not particularly gendered. Here in the real world(USA) it's a very gendered derogatory. IOW, you could refer to @Metaphor as a cunt without misgendering.

It has never occurred to me that calling somebody a cunt could be 'misgendering' them.

Because in Australian "cunt" doesn't have a gender. In American "cunt" is explicitly female. We do not speak the same language, it's just there is enough in common between our languages that they are mostly mutually intelligible with only occasional misunderstandings.

 

[Jarhyn]

I am again going to repeat my final statement of the matter:

The preponderance of scientific evidence currently supports the case that transgender people are born as such and that transgender people have a clinically legitimate interest in seeking gender-affirmation.

Semantic pedantry constitutes trolling.

No. Telling people 'your concerns about uttering the prayers of somebody else's religion is trolling', is gaslighting.

Semantic arguments about gender constitutes as much of a pseudoscience as racist arguments based on phreneology. Word games will not cause me to stop existing.

The word games that trans activists play don't change reality. The daily mutilation and sterilisation of children that trans activists endorse are not 'word games'. They are State-endorsed violence against unconsenting bodies.

And then we came back around the horn!

Of course, the bad faith crew will howl and moan! Oh will they howl and moan!

"They are too young to know what they want!"

You know, this first argument sounds like the very reason we don't let kids have sex: because they are too young to understand it.

The thing is, when something happens and is forced on someone too young to understand, generally, well, that's the reason pedophilia is special among evil acts.

So when we have no choice but for something to happen, when people express at that age a desire for a specific thing to happen, and when not only is it in our power to fulfill some of that of which we do let happen them but also even have power to delay this onset so that they may consider... And then we force upon them an immediate and irreversible outcome that is none of those things, but exactly what they do not want...

Well, that carries that same burden as "pedophilia".

Congratulations, if this describes you, you want to rape a child with an unwanted puberty. I did a mental exercise to compare it to an unwanted rape pregnancy but they're both just completely fucked up.

"They will be sterilized!"

I could give a shit less of a fuck. They can adopt if they want a kid. It is far from certain, and as some have noted, we don't need more kids. As technology progresses this may not even be a concern in the long term.

Regardless, the people who make these arguments remind me of the doctors I hear stories bout on /r/childfree who patronize (mostly women) and either expect their husband's OK, second guesses their convictions, or otherwise flat out denies them. My visceral reaction when I see this is "my body, my choice; if you think my body, your choice, then your body my choice," I kIck them in the gonads until they break. Of course I wouldn't, but I would like to. Instead they would be getting a complaint filed with the state medical board, along with whatever other malignancy I can bring into the life of a gatekeeper on reproductive self determination.

@TomC will obviously agree with me that this is a spurious argument as well, I am sure, because of how they have argued we have enough people already.

 

[Metaphor]

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.

No. Pronouns are like a name. You don't get to choose their name, you don't get to choose their pronouns. Deliberately calling someone by the wrong pronoun is the same as deliberately calling them by the wrong name.

No. People do not get to choose their pronouns, and people do not get to compel prayers from my lips.

Also, you are plainly wrong, even by gender cultist standards. In this very thread it has been established that some pronouns are not acceptable, like 'your majesty', because it implies fealty.

You can change your name because your name is a legal and social construct. You can't change your sex because you are a mammal. And you can't - in a secular society - compel the prayers of the infidels.

 

[Metaphor]

"They will be sterilized!"

I could give a shit less of a fuck.

That is an openly evil sentiment to express.

 

[Jarhyn]

"They will be sterilized!"

I could give a shit less of a fuck.

<Insult removed>

They can adopt if they want a kid. Interesting that you snipped that part out. It was the very next line, in fact.

 

[Metaphor]

"They will be sterilized!"

I could give a shit less of a fuck.

<Insult removed>

They can adopt if they want a kid. Interesting that you snipped that part out. It was the very next line, in fact.

You do not get to sterilise unconsenting people and then pretend you've done nothing to them. You've sterilised them in the name of your gender god. That is sick as fuck.

Let's take out children's eyes while we are at it. After all, they can just get a seeing eye dog if they want to move around the world.

 

[Jarhyn]

"They will be sterilized!"

I could give a shit less of a fuck.

<Insult removed>

They can adopt if they want a kid. Interesting that you snipped that part out. It was the very next line, in fact.

You do not get to sterilise unconsenting people and then pretend you've done nothing to them. You've sterilised them in the name of your gender god. That is sick as fuck.

Let's take out children's eyes while we are at it. After all, they can just get a seeing eye dog if they want to move around the world.

Wow. So we are clear now, you are the one that brought "unconsenting" into this.

It is very bad faith to characterize "Please help me do this to my body or let me do it to myself, or I believe my life is not going to be worth living" as "unconsenting". I mean I knew there were differences between American English and Australian, but jeez that's pretty major.

 

[Jarhyn]

"They will be sterilized!"

I could give a shit less of a fuck.

That is an openly evil sentiment to express.

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.

No. Pronouns are like a name. You don't get to choose their name, you don't get to choose their pronouns. Deliberately calling someone by the wrong pronoun is the same as deliberately calling them by the wrong name.

No. People do not get to choose their pronouns, and people do not get to compel prayers from my lips.

Yet you did not end up keeping what you first said, almost as if some expectation of polite behavior compelled you to speak differently.

Also, you are plainly wrong, even by gender cultist standards. In this very thread it has been established that some pronouns are not acceptable, like 'your majesty', because it implies fealty.

As has been discussed, you are free to claim any such identity that goes with 'your majesty'. You are going to also claim any consequence to that in a society of equals.

You can change your name because your name is a legal and social construct. You can't change your sex because you are a mammal. And you can't - in a secular society - compel the prayers of the infidels.

You are comparing asking someone to not kick and scream and deny giving people as what they ask for (when you give that freely to half of everyone free of any other real information) to compelling prayer.

I will compel the prayers of the compulsive masturbator of the form "prayer by not publicly masturbating".

I will happily compel the prayers of the bully of the form "prayer by not loudly telling everyone Jimmy's mom is a drunk (even though she is) in front of the whole class".

I will happily compel the prayers of the gender bully to not misgender people, particularly in the availability of neutral pronouns they/their, especially if they do not wish to play gender games.

 

[Enigma]

Wow. So we are clear now, you are the one that brought "unconsenting" into this.

It is very bad faith to characterize "Please help me do this to my body or let me do it to myself, or I believe my life is not going to be worth living" as "unconsenting".

It is unconsenting for roughly the same reasons as "Please let me continue my sexual relationship with my 40 year old middle-school gym teacher because he's a nice man who makes me feel good. I love him and if I can't be with him anymore, my life isn't worth living." is also unconsenting.

Middle-school age boys and girls cannot consent to sex with adults regardless about how they feel about the matter because they are (rightfully) not considered competent to make that decision and the person they are making the decision with is old enough to be reasonably expected to know better. Odds are that the kid barred from that sexual relationship won't kill themselves and instead end up moving on with their life and eventually find true love elsewhere, or possibly be a loner, dealing with thoughts of what might have been, which is something that falls well into the standard range of existential bullshit that self-reflective people find themselves dealing with.

Even in the case that the middle-schooler would kill themselves, is the reasonable solution to the problem really "Welp, the middle-schooler consented and the gym teacher consented. Have fun fucking, you two!"?

The same logic applies to either the 40 year old gym teacher the middle-schooler wants to fuck as well as the 40 year old doctor the middle-schooler wants to be sterilized by.

"They will be sterilized!"

I could give a shit less of a fuck. They can adopt if they want a kid.

The fact that you don't give a shit about having children that are genetically related to you is irrelevant given that this is a discussion of proposed public policy and a remarkably large number of people do happen to give a shit about that. That you are willing to ignore this for the sake of how your proposed designs need to be implemented does not particularly speak well of the proposal in question.

Whether or not you give a shit is completely irrelevant on the proposed public policy front because, last time I checked, I'm pretty sure you aren't The Rightful God-Emperor of Humanity.

 

[Jarhyn]

Wow. So we are clear now, you are the one that brought "unconsenting" into this.

It is very bad faith to characterize "Please help me do this to my body or let me do it to myself, or I believe my life is not going to be worth living" as "unconsenting".

It is unconsenting for roughly the same reasons as "Please let me continue my sexual relationship with my 40 year old middle-school gym teacher because he's a nice man who makes me feel good. I love him and if I can't be with him anymore, my life isn't worth living." is also unconsenting.

"They are too young to know what they want!"

You know, this first argument sounds like the very reason we don't let kids have sex: because they are too young to understand it.

The thing is, when something happens and is forced on someone too young to understand, generally, well, that's the reason pedophilia is special among evil acts.

So when we have no choice but for something to happen, when people express at that age a desire for a specific thing to happen, and when not only is it in our power to fulfill some of that in what we do let happen to them but also even have power to delay this onset so that they may consider... And then we force upon them an immediate and irreversible outcome that is none of those things, but exactly what they do not want...

Well, that carries that same burden as "pedophilia".

Congratulations, if this describes you, you want to rape a child with an unwanted puberty. I did a mental exercise to compare it to an unwanted rape pregnancy but they're both just completely fucked up.

"They will be sterilized!"

I could give a shit less of a fuck. They can adopt if they want a kid.

The fact that you don't give a shit about having children that are genetically related to you is irrelevant given that this is a discussion of proposed public policy and a remarkably large number of people do happen to give a shit about that.

It's a good thing then that we are talking in this context specifically about the ones who don't That you are willing to ignore this for the sake of how your proposed designs need to be implemented does not particularly speak well of the proposal in question.

Whether or not you give a shit is completely irrelevant on the proposed public policy front because, last time I checked, I'm pretty sure you aren't The Rightful God-Emperor of Humanity.

 

[Metaphor]

"They will be sterilized!"

I could give a shit less of a fuck.

That is an openly evil sentiment to express.

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.

No. Pronouns are like a name. You don't get to choose their name, you don't get to choose their pronouns. Deliberately calling someone by the wrong pronoun is the same as deliberately calling them by the wrong name.

No. People do not get to choose their pronouns, and people do not get to compel prayers from my lips.

Yet you did not end up keeping what you first said, almost as if some expectation of polite behavior compelled you to speak differently.

No. It was not the expectation that compelled me. They are rules I agreed to be bound by to use this board.

Also, you are plainly wrong, even by gender cultist standards. In this very thread it has been established that some pronouns are not acceptable, like 'your majesty', because it implies fealty.

As has been discussed, you are free to claim any such identity that goes with 'your majesty'. You are going to also claim any consequence to that in a society of equals.

I do not desire to compel anybody's speech the way you do.

You can change your name because your name is a legal and social construct. You can't change your sex because you are a mammal. And you can't - in a secular society - compel the prayers of the infidels.

You are comparing asking someone to not kick and scream and deny giving people as what they ask for (when you give that freely to half of everyone free of any other real information) to compelling prayer.

Compelling me to use pronouns that do not accord with reality but accord with your gender cult is compelling prayer.

I will compel the prayers of the compulsive masturbator of the form "prayer by not publicly masturbating".

I will happily compel the prayers of the bully of the form "prayer by not loudly telling everyone Jimmy's mom is a drunk (even though she is) in front of the whole class".

I will happily compel the prayers of the gender bully to not misgender people, particularly in the availability of neutral pronouns they/their, especially if they do not wish to play gender games.

Gender cultists who wish to compel speech are the gender bullies.

 

[Keith&Co.]

The proscription on goading is in the terms of use, but this specific ruling about deliberate misgendering being considered as goading is not. I think since it is a rule, it should be made explicit in the terms of use, and not just posted in this thread, which is many pages long and is not a rules thread.

As has been noted already, the moderation team is working on the wording and will make the update as soon as we have a consensus.

And, as has been noted already, the right place to ask about that is in the Private Feedback forum.

We hear, we agree, we are working on it.

Is there a"In accordance with my previous utterances"smilie?

 

[Rhea]

The proscription on goading is in the terms of use, but this specific ruling about deliberate misgendering being considered as goading is not. I think since it is a rule, it should be made explicit in the terms of use, and not just posted in this thread, which is many pages long and is not a rules thread.

As has been noted already, the moderation team is working on the wording and will make the update as soon as we have a consensus.

And, as has been noted already, the right place to ask about that is in the Private Feedback forum.

We hear, we agree, we are working on it.

Is there a"In accordance with my previous utterances"smilie?

will that one do?

 

[Rhea]

The clarification has been entered. Currently in bold on number 7.

Clarification of Rules

Term of Use: Clarification of Rules

iidb.org

(not sure why the quotes of the rule numbers went black for those in light background mode. Our Tech Guy is working on that, but we bought him a lot of beer last night, so it might be a little bit.)

 

[Jarhyn]

"They will be sterilized!"

I could give a shit less of a fuck.

That is an openly evil sentiment to express.

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.

No. Pronouns are like a name. You don't get to choose their name, you don't get to choose their pronouns. Deliberately calling someone by the wrong pronoun is the same as deliberately calling them by the wrong name.

No. People do not get to choose their pronouns, and people do not get to compel prayers from my lips.

Yet you did not end up keeping what you first said, almost as if some expectation of polite behavior compelled you to speak differently.

No. It was not the expectation that compelled me. They are rules I agreed to be bound by to use this board.

Which compelled you to not say a thing.

Also, you are plainly wrong, even by gender cultist standards. In this very thread it has been established that some pronouns are not acceptable, like 'your majesty', because it implies fealty.

As has been discussed, you are free to claim any such identity that goes with 'your majesty'. You are going to also claim any consequence to that in a society of equals.

I do not desire to compel anybody's speech the way you do.

I'm sure you would speak differently if someone were to follow you everywhere loudly proclaiming your physical address.

Some things we do not want publicly known, and have every right to compel others to not speak of.

Similarly, defamation and slander can even incorporate true statements.

This is no different. You are not being asked to say HE when someone was born with ovaries, you are being asked to just not say SHE, because what someone was born with is their own business.

You can change your name because your name is a legal and social construct. You can't change your sex because you are a mammal. And you can't - in a secular society - compel the prayers of the infidels.

You are comparing asking someone to not kick and scream and deny giving people as what they ask for (when you give that freely to half of everyone free of any other real information) to compelling prayer.

Compelling me to use pronouns that do not accord with reality but accord with your gender cult is compelling prayer.

"They/them" is entirely available to you if you decide you wish to not play gender games.

It is your insistence on dragging PRIVATE realities into PUBLIC through using language, in the gender game, that reveals genitals.

I will compel the prayers of the compulsive masturbator of the form "prayer by not publicly masturbating".

I will happily compel the prayers of the bully of the form "prayer by not loudly telling everyone Jimmy's mom is a drunk (even though she is) in front of the whole class".

I will happily compel the prayers of the gender bully to not misgender people, particularly in the availability of neutral pronouns they/their, especially if they do not wish to play gender games.

Gender cultists who wish to compel speech are the gender bullies.

It is not compulsion to ask people to be civil surrounding the privacy of others, even if the geometry of secondary sex characteristics are hard to actually keep private.

Politeness is much about not bringing up obvious but unimportant things.

 

[TomC]

There is enforcement at play, and false and unwarranted accusations of misgendering all around. Look at what happened in the other thread, and even - though to a lesser extent - in this one.

OMFG!
You poor thing.

Sorry to be sarcastic, but I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. I only know of two episodes of "enforcement" concerning gendering on this forum, and both were when it was TFT. Maybe I just don't know about the enforcement concerning "false and unwarranted accusations of misgendering all around".

Maybe you know about issues that I am unaware of, but more plausible explanations for your post exist. Maybe having your personal genderizing norms challenged by others seems like an attack. I dunno.

Here's another interesting aspect. A person's attitudes towards this subject are also social cues. As a reasonably competent adult I figure things out about other people based on a ton of different things. I use the term "cues".

A person who expresses the opinion that what matters more is another person's sex than their gender, the cue I take from that is that they view other humans as objects. A human body is an object, it will have a sex. A person is not only their body, they're vastly more. Sometimes that includes quirkiness like transsexuals.

To me, the opinion that the sex of an object is more real than the gender of a human being, is a social cue. It tells me a lot about the holder of the opinion. It's not especially flattering, it implies primitive ethics and world views.

It implies other things. Do you think that white people treating black people as social equals is "polite fiction"? Where I live it's a painfully common phenomenon. I dunno about you, or the language you speak originally. Maybe you speak "Old Talk", and referring to black people as niggers is just how you were raised.

This is an internet forum. I don't claim to know anyone well, I'm just going by the cues provided by little black marks on my phone.
Tom

 

[Enigma]

Wow. So we are clear now, you are the one that brought "unconsenting" into this.

It is very bad faith to characterize "Please help me do this to my body or let me do it to myself, or I believe my life is not going to be worth living" as "unconsenting".

It is unconsenting for roughly the same reasons as "Please let me continue my sexual relationship with my 40 year old middle-school gym teacher because he's a nice man who makes me feel good. I love him and if I can't be with him anymore, my life isn't worth living." is also unconsenting.

"They are too young to know what they want!"

You know, this first argument sounds like the very reason we don't let kids have sex: because they are too young to understand it.

Yes, this is the reason we don't let kids have sex. This is the reason why age of consent laws are a thing. You have at no point refuted this.

The thing is, when something happens and is forced on someone too young to understand, generally, well, that's the reason pedophilia is special among evil acts.

So when we have no choice but for something to happen, when people express at that age a desire for a specific thing to happen, and when not only is it in our power to fulfill some of that in what we do let happen to them but also even have power to delay this onset so that they may consider... And then we force upon them an immediate and irreversible outcome that is none of those things, but exactly what they do not want...

Well, that carries that same burden as "pedophilia".

Congratulations, if this describes you, you want to rape a child with an unwanted puberty. I did a mental exercise to compare it to an unwanted rape pregnancy but they're both just completely fucked up.

Congratulations, you've just made the argument that giving a vaccine shot to a child who doesn't like needles against their will is basically child rape.

The metaphor is even remarkably straightforward due to unwanted penetration happening in both cases.

Would you like to retract/reformulate this argument?

Because if not, then either you've effectively outed yourself as an anti-vaxxer, or you are in the odd position of arguing that mandatory childhood vaccines are "Child rape-like, but done for a good cause, so it's ok.".

"They will be sterilized!"

I could give a shit less of a fuck. They can adopt if they want a kid.

The fact that you don't give a shit about having children that are genetically related to you is irrelevant given that this is a discussion of proposed public policy and a remarkably large number of people do happen to give a shit about that.

It's a good thing then that we are talking in this context specifically about the ones who don't

Who, being minors, cannot consent to sterilize themselves any more than they can consent to have a sexual relationship with their gym teacher. For roughly the same reasons.

Are you sure you really want to take the "Welp, the middle-schooler consented and the gym teacher consented. Have fun fucking, you two!" position on this one?

That you are willing to ignore this for the sake of how your proposed designs need to be implemented does not particularly speak well of the proposal in question.

Whether or not you give a shit is completely irrelevant on the proposed public policy front because, last time I checked, I'm pretty sure you aren't The Rightful God-Emperor of Humanity.

Honestly, I'm not sure if this is a remarkably poor attempt at what the kids call a "sick burn" or if it's just a case of miscopying my post and hitting send without proofreading.

At no point in this discussion have I claimed that whether or not public policy should take something into account what I give a shit about or don't. You have.

That you would deny that what other people give a shit about matters in determining public policy is telling, given that your schtick largely consists of arguing how we need to fundamentally reorganize various aspects of society solely because of things that you give a shit about.

Given that I am The Rightful God-Emperor of Humanity, I'm not sure if it's funny or sad that you seem to be intent on making more decrees than I do.

 

[laughing dog]

Gender cultists who wish to compel speech are the gender bullies.

Another generation of irony meters is annihilated.

 

[TomC]

The clarification has been entered. Currently in bold on number 7.

Clarification of Rules

Term of Use: Clarification of Rules

iidb.org

(not sure why the quotes of the rule numbers went black for those in light background mode. Our Tech Guy is working on that, but we bought him a lot of beer last night, so it might be a little bit.)

Tom pours himself another glass of wine on an inclement Saturday afternoon.

Rules are for little people. One needn't understand what the little black marks on your screen mean, or even read them, to follow staff cues concerning what's important in this context. And it's not difficult for a competent adult to understand how civil conversation works.

I don't recall reading, or caring about, the posted rules of an internet forum. I've been a member of dozens, defining member as having posted at least 200 times. I've been a member of more, but I usually lurk awhile. If the modding isn't up to my standards, I just stopped logging in.

A few, I realized later, weren't good enough for me. So I stopped posting. I never tangled with the staff, but they weren't up to my standards.

I've only been banned from one, but I had been warned. I stopped counting my warnings somewhere around 65.

There's another cue.

Love, Tom

 

[Metaphor]

"They will be sterilized!"

I could give a shit less of a fuck.

That is an openly evil sentiment to express.

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.

No. Pronouns are like a name. You don't get to choose their name, you don't get to choose their pronouns. Deliberately calling someone by the wrong pronoun is the same as deliberately calling them by the wrong name.

No. People do not get to choose their pronouns, and people do not get to compel prayers from my lips.

Yet you did not end up keeping what you first said, almost as if some expectation of polite behavior compelled you to speak differently.

No. It was not the expectation that compelled me. They are rules I agreed to be bound by to use this board.

Which compelled you to not say a thing.

Huh? No it didn't. I changed what I wrote to align with the rules.

But even if it had, I agreed to be bound by the terms of use of the board while I am on the board.

Also, you are plainly wrong, even by gender cultist standards. In this very thread it has been established that some pronouns are not acceptable, like 'your majesty', because it implies fealty.

As has been discussed, you are free to claim any such identity that goes with 'your majesty'. You are going to also claim any consequence to that in a society of equals.

I do not desire to compel anybody's speech the way you do.

I'm sure you would speak differently if someone were to follow you everywhere loudly proclaiming your physical address.

Yes, some trans-identified males doxxed J.K. Rowling recently, and doxxing someone is done specifically to frighten them.

Some things we do not want publicly known, and have every right to compel others to not speak of.

Again with your delusions that everybody who uses the correct-sexed pronouns has some magickal insider knowledge. No, they don't. They have used their own eyes to observe something that is public.

Similarly, defamation and slander can even incorporate true statements.

This is no different. You are not being asked to say HE when someone was born with ovaries, you are being asked to just not say SHE, because what someone was born with is their own business.

Ludicrous. I will not utter your prayers. Do you understand, Jarhyn?

I do not belong to your religion and you will not force me to utter your prayers or believe in your catechism.

You can change your name because your name is a legal and social construct. You can't change your sex because you are a mammal. And you can't - in a secular society - compel the prayers of the infidels.

You are comparing asking someone to not kick and scream and deny giving people as what they ask for (when you give that freely to half of everyone free of any other real information) to compelling prayer.

Compelling me to use pronouns that do not accord with reality but accord with your gender cult is compelling prayer.

"They/them" is entirely available to you if you decide you wish to not play gender games.

Compelling "they/them" and forbidding pronouns is you playing gender games. Stop trying to control my speech like an autocrat.

It is your insistence on dragging PRIVATE realities into PUBLIC through using language, in the gender game, that reveals genitals.

Again with your delusions that everybody who uses the correct-sexed pronouns has some magickal insider knowledge. No, they don't. They have used their own eyes to observe something that is public.

I will compel the prayers of the compulsive masturbator of the form "prayer by not publicly masturbating".

I will happily compel the prayers of the bully of the form "prayer by not loudly telling everyone Jimmy's mom is a drunk (even though she is) in front of the whole class".

I will happily compel the prayers of the gender bully to not misgender people, particularly in the availability of neutral pronouns they/their, especially if they do not wish to play gender games.

Gender cultists who wish to compel speech are the gender bullies.

It is not compulsion to ask people to be civil surrounding the privacy of others, even if the geometry of secondary sex characteristics are hard to actually keep private.

It is worse than uncivil to be forced to participate in your religion.

Politeness is much about not bringing up obvious but unimportant things.

I have participated in polite fictions before and I reserve the right to do so in the future. But the point is that it's my choice to participate when I do. Not yours.

 

[Metaphor]

Gender cultists who wish to compel speech are the gender bullies.

Another generation of irony meters is annihilated.

Yeah, I'm asking people not to compel speech and asking people to maybe refrain from mutilating and sterilising their children, and I'm the gender cultist.

 

[laughing dog]

Gender cultists who wish to compel speech are the gender bullies.

Another generation of irony meters is annihilated.

Yeah, I'm asking people not to compel speech and asking people to maybe refrain from mutilating and sterilising their children, and I'm the gender cultist.

For some obscure reason you feel there is only one type.

 

[ZiprHead]

You can change your name because your name is a legal and social construct. You can't change your sex because you are a mammal. And you can't - in a secular society - compel the prayers of the infidels.

You are comparing asking someone to not kick and scream and deny giving people as what they ask for (when you give that freely to half of everyone free of any other real information) to compelling prayer.

Compelling me to use pronouns that do not accord with reality but accord with your gender cult is compelling prayer.

Interesting concept. So can I call gay guys buttfuckers and cocksuckers without issue?

 

[Metaphor]

You can change your name because your name is a legal and social construct. You can't change your sex because you are a mammal. And you can't - in a secular society - compel the prayers of the infidels.

You are comparing asking someone to not kick and scream and deny giving people as what they ask for (when you give that freely to half of everyone free of any other real information) to compelling prayer.

Compelling me to use pronouns that do not accord with reality but accord with your gender cult is compelling prayer.

Interesting concept. So can I call gay guys buttfuckers and cocksuckers without issue?

Of course you can; I'm not the boss of you, nor would I want the State to punish you for doing so.

But I think if you feel the need to do that, why? Are you doing it to be mean? Why do you need to call gay men anything other than men, out of interest?

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

 

[TomC]

You can change your name because your name is a legal and social construct. You can't change your sex because you are a mammal. And you can't - in a secular society - compel the prayers of the infidels.

You are comparing asking someone to not kick and scream and deny giving people as what they ask for (when you give that freely to half of everyone free of any other real information) to compelling prayer.

Compelling me to use pronouns that do not accord with reality but accord with your gender cult is compelling prayer.

Interesting concept. So can I call gay guys buttfuckers and cocksuckers without issue?

Sure.
You're the "loony running the asylum". I can take a cue.

I'm preparing a detailed wall of dragonesque mansplaining on the subjects.

Complete with smells, tastes, product endorsements, and instructional videos.

See you in the morning.
Tom

 

[Angra Mainyu]

The preponderance of scientific evidence currently supports the case that transgender people are born as such and that transgender people have a clinically legitimate interest in seeking gender-affirmation.

You already posted in the other thread. I was going to reply and show why your claims were both irrelevant to my points, and also missed the mark in many ways. I was not allowed to.

Semantic pedantry constitutes trolling.

Accusations of semantic pedandry when one debunks your claims are improper.

Semantic arguments about gender constitutes as much of a pseudoscience as racist arguments based on phreneology.

It is morally unacceptable to falsely and without warrant accuse others of something akin to racism.

Word games will not cause me to stop existing.

Obviously, but in context, that claim of yours:

1. Implicitly accuses me of engaging in word games. It is a false and unwarranted accusation.

2. Implicitly accuses me of wanting you to stop existing. I would want you to stop behaving in the following manner: grossly misrepresent what I say, keep making false and unwarranted accusations.

Word games will not cause transgender kids to stop killing themselves because their families will literally batter their own children in order to make a political statement. Transphobic pseudoscience is like any other destructive pseudoscience, and I regard it as a particularly destructive form of hate speech.

You can falsely and unjustly accuse me all you want, but you cannot win the argument with reason. You do not even engage.

There is no credible argument for considering transphobic pseudoscience to be valid in polite conversation.

It is impolite to raise false and unwarranted accusations.

 

[Rhea]

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

Lindsay Graham would like a word.

 

[Jarhyn]

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

Lindsay Graham would like a word.

Also, many of folks do rightly demand that people not call them gay in public.

The consequences of being outed for not being straight can be deadly.

The same goes for not being "cis".

 

[Jarhyn]

Gender cultists who wish to compel speech are the gender bullies.

Another generation of irony meters is annihilated.

Yeah, I'm asking people not to compel speech and asking people to maybe refrain from mutilating and sterilising their children, and I'm the gender cultist.

Letting people do to their own body as adults, and letting people engage in hormonal realities that we do not deny others; and not playing some facile game where we pretend that everyone can or should reproduce or that not reproducing means not having a meaningful experience as a parent?

This is what you have a problem with?

Evil sentiments, indeed.