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

[Metaphor]

So much struggle against just using the gender people ask, on a message board.
A simple field people can fill in, if they want to, to say “use this gender.”
And more than 300 posts to complain about it.

Who complained?

 

[laughing dog]

Fascinating. I am much more interested in the person as a person, not their anatomy.

Fascinating that you think it follows that 'using pronouns that accords with a person's sex' implies that I'm not interested in people as people.

You think wrong. You really cannot read minds.

That is probably true, because most people's sex and gender identity are the same.

My sex and gender are not the same. I have a sex but I don't have a gender identity. The correct pronoun to use for me--and any human or other animal--is the pronoun that accords with my sex.

You are mistaken. I

 

[Metaphor]

You think wrong. You really cannot read minds.

It's true I can't read minds, but you posted that to make the implication that you did.

You are mistaken. I

I'm not.

 

[Jarhyn]

Fascinating. I am much more interested in the person as a person, not their anatomy.

Fascinating that you think it follows that 'using pronouns that accords with a person's sex' implies that I'm not interested in people as people.

You think wrong. You really cannot read minds.

He could if he actually payed attention to the words those.minds were broadcasting.

Let me read your mind: you don't think metaphor can read minds!

 

[Metaphor]

Fascinating. I am much more interested in the person as a person, not their anatomy.

Fascinating that you think it follows that 'using pronouns that accords with a person's sex' implies that I'm not interested in people as people.

You think wrong. You really cannot read minds.

He could if he actually payed attention to the words those.minds were broadcasting.

Let me read your mind: you don't think metaphor can read minds!

You didn't read his mind. You read his words.

 

[Jarhyn]

Fascinating. I am much more interested in the person as a person, not their anatomy.

Fascinating that you think it follows that 'using pronouns that accords with a person's sex' implies that I'm not interested in people as people.

You think wrong. You really cannot read minds.

He could if he actually payed attention to the words those.minds were broadcasting.

Let me read your mind: you don't think metaphor can read minds!

You didn't read his mind. You read his words.

The words produced by his mind, in the way minds communicate in general...

 

[Metaphor]

Fascinating. I am much more interested in the person as a person, not their anatomy.

Fascinating that you think it follows that 'using pronouns that accords with a person's sex' implies that I'm not interested in people as people.

You think wrong. You really cannot read minds.

He could if he actually payed attention to the words those.minds were broadcasting.

Let me read your mind: you don't think metaphor can read minds!

You didn't read his mind. You read his words.

The words produced by his mind, in the way minds communicate in general...

laughing dog's words may or may not be a representation of what he believes.

In fact, you don't even appear to understand the context of how people use the term 'mind-reader'. It arises, in one context, where people think there is a conflict between what somebody says and what they really believe (that is what is 'in their mind').

I can't read minds and I am certain people cannot read my mind, as is made apparent by the interpretations people put on my words and their willingness to call me a 'troll', as if I do not believe I believe the things I am saying.

 

[SigmatheZeta]

I say, let's follow the advice of the American Academy of Pediatrics!

 

[Metaphor]

I say, let's follow the advice of the American Academy of Pediatrics!

I say, fuck the 'advice' of any 'academy' that endorses male infant genital mutilation.

Fuck them to hell and back. Fuck the horse they rode in on. Fuck. Those. Cunts.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I say, let's follow the advice of the American Academy of Pediatrics!

I say: my arguments are independent of the advice of the American Academy of Pediatrics. They neither endorse it nor reject it. They're arguments about something else - and your earlier reply to me involving the advice of the American Academy of Pediatrics did not address my points.

 

[TomC]

I say, let's follow the advice of the American Academy of Pediatrics!

I'm not big on accepting authority. An authority might agree with me, that's great when it happens. But it's not an argument or evidence beyond somebody's opinion.
Tom

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I go out in public all the time, and I am unmistakably a man. I would still be unmistakably a man no matter what I did to disguise it. And it is not a crime for people to notice.

How about somebody in a burka?

What about them?

If you are asking "could I tell the difference between a man in a burka and a woman in a burka just by casually interacting with them", the answer is "probably". But if it's not "probably", I'd probably just use 'they' to refer to them, indicating I was not certain of their sex.

Have you ever spoken to adult human beings? Have you ever noticed that you can usually tell somebody's sex from their voice alone? Or that men and women have different gaits and different heights and different faces and different body fat distributions and different hips and different chests?

Has all of this escaped your notice your entire life?

I am routinely mistaken for female on the phone. Obviously, at least after passing through the frequency filters of the phone people can't tell the gender of my voice. And in hiking in the winter I have often found myself unable to determine someone's gender without seeing their face--in evening winter hiking (after work, but that ends up being after dark) I have gotten gender wrong. I have a SIL that people have tried to kick out of the women's room.

Just because we can do it quite well in the easy cases doesn't mean we can always do it.

And there used to be a pretty hilarious drag queen show here in town we saw once. You wouldn't realize everyone on stage was actually male.

So, Jarhyn's objection to my correctly observing somebody's sex is that I am 'outing' them or 'doxxing' them, or some other insane-o-sphere delusion that I am revealing information about their genitals that is private.

You, and Jarhyn it seems, appear to believe that most people most of the time can't tell the sex of somebody by merely looking at them. That is such an absurd thing to believe I can't even.

Which one is a guy?

 

[Jarhyn]

Just because we can do it quite well in the easy cases doesn't mean we can always do it.

And more importantly just because we can, (assuming we can), does not mean that we should in the first place. And just because we can manage to not, if we can manage such a feat, does not mean that we should even still offer such information where it may be excluded except when we choose to opt into it.

That most people do opt in, and do so freely, is their own business. Good for them. And good for everyone that opts out. And good for everyone that options something less expected.

 

[bilby]

When your sole excuse for being a rude cunt to strangers is that "it's not (or shouldn't be) illegal to be a rude cunt to strangers", it's probably time for you to re-evaluate your behaviour, and maybe your entire moral code.

 

[TomC]

I go out in public all the time, and I am unmistakably a man. I would still be unmistakably a man no matter what I did to disguise it. And it is not a crime for people to notice.

How about somebody in a burka?

What about them?

If you are asking "could I tell the difference between a man in a burka and a woman in a burka just by casually interacting with them", the answer is "probably". But if it's not "probably", I'd probably just use 'they' to refer to them, indicating I was not certain of their sex.

Have you ever spoken to adult human beings? Have you ever noticed that you can usually tell somebody's sex from their voice alone? Or that men and women have different gaits and different heights and different faces and different body fat distributions and different hips and different chests?

Has all of this escaped your notice your entire life?

I am routinely mistaken for female on the phone. Obviously, at least after passing through the frequency filters of the phone people can't tell the gender of my voice. And in hiking in the winter I have often found myself unable to determine someone's gender without seeing their face--in evening winter hiking (after work, but that ends up being after dark) I have gotten gender wrong. I have a SIL that people have tried to kick out of the women's room.

Just because we can do it quite well in the easy cases doesn't mean we can always do it.

And there used to be a pretty hilarious drag queen show here in town we saw once. You wouldn't realize everyone on stage was actually male.

So, Jarhyn's objection to my correctly observing somebody's sex is that I am 'outing' them or 'doxxing' them, or some other insane-o-sphere delusion that I am revealing information about their genitals that is private.

You, and Jarhyn it seems, appear to believe that most people most of the time can't tell the sex of somebody by merely looking at them. That is such an absurd thing to believe I can't even.

Which one is a guy?

My first pick would be Cher.

There's more white guys than black, so, statistically more Chers than Tinas.

The rest are just bimbos I don't recognize. Yeah, I'm old. Sue me.Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

I go out in public all the time, and I am unmistakably a man. I would still be unmistakably a man no matter what I did to disguise it. And it is not a crime for people to notice.

How about somebody in a burka?

What about them?

If you are asking "could I tell the difference between a man in a burka and a woman in a burka just by casually interacting with them", the answer is "probably". But if it's not "probably", I'd probably just use 'they' to refer to them, indicating I was not certain of their sex.

Have you ever spoken to adult human beings? Have you ever noticed that you can usually tell somebody's sex from their voice alone? Or that men and women have different gaits and different heights and different faces and different body fat distributions and different hips and different chests?

Has all of this escaped your notice your entire life?

I am routinely mistaken for female on the phone. Obviously, at least after passing through the frequency filters of the phone people can't tell the gender of my voice. And in hiking in the winter I have often found myself unable to determine someone's gender without seeing their face--in evening winter hiking (after work, but that ends up being after dark) I have gotten gender wrong. I have a SIL that people have tried to kick out of the women's room.

Just because we can do it quite well in the easy cases doesn't mean we can always do it.

And there used to be a pretty hilarious drag queen show here in town we saw once. You wouldn't realize everyone on stage was actually male.

So, Jarhyn's objection to my correctly observing somebody's sex is that I am 'outing' them or 'doxxing' them, or some other insane-o-sphere delusion that I am revealing information about their genitals that is private.

You, and Jarhyn it seems, appear to believe that most people most of the time can't tell the sex of somebody by merely looking at them. That is such an absurd thing to believe I can't even.

Which one is a guy?

My first pick would be Cher.

There's more white guys than black, so, statistically more Chers than Tinas.

The rest are just bimbos I don't recognize. Yeah, I'm old. Sue me.Tom

I think if any of them asked me, I'd just say "hun, all imma say is I think you're gorgeous, and I'm jealous. It's not my place to put a pronoun on it though, you tell me what's right and when it's right."

 

[Metaphor]

When your sole excuse for being a rude cunt to strangers is that "it's not (or shouldn't be) illegal to be a rude cunt to strangers", it's probably time for you to re-evaluate your behaviour, and maybe your entire moral code.

I don't need an 'excuse' to refuse to utter the prayers of somebody else's religion.

 

[SigmatheZeta]

I say, let's follow the advice of the American Academy of Pediatrics!

I'm not big on accepting authority. An authority might agree with me, that's great when it happens. But it's not an argument or evidence beyond somebody's opinion.
Tom

I was not aware that you were anti-science. The official statements of the American Academy of Pediatrics constitite the united opinion of one of the most respected pediatric organizations in the world, and their statements are based on peer reviewed research that must be vetted by the editors of the most high impact peer-reviewed journals in the world.

Since you are anti-science, though, that must not mean very much to you.

 

[Metaphor]

I am routinely mistaken for female on the phone. Obviously, at least after passing through the frequency filters of the phone people can't tell the gender of my voice.

That your voice might not be obviously male or female is not the same thing as people mistaking your gender. In any case, I have already said it is more difficult to know somebody's sex when talking to them over the phone, and sometimes I don't know just from a lo-fi phone call.

And in hiking in the winter I have often found myself unable to determine someone's gender without seeing their face--in evening winter hiking (after work, but that ends up being after dark) I have gotten gender wrong.

You mean: you couldn't determine their sex without seeing their face.

I have a SIL that people have tried to kick out of the women's room.

SIL?

Just because we can do it quite well in the easy cases doesn't mean we can always do it.

I never claimed I could always do it with 100% accuracy.

 

[Metaphor]

Which one is a guy?

I do not believe these 'gotcha' games shed light on anything. If it is supposed to be 'somebody's sex is not always as obvious as you think', I've already said that sometimes the sex of a person can be ambiguous, especially from a still photo with no interaction with the person.

My instinct, looking at that photo, is that they are all guys. They all look like men in drag.

 

[TomC]

I was not aware that you were anti-science.

I already don't like you and your mansplaining.

If you prefer things this way, you go right ahead and dragon me.

Love you. Mean it.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Which one is a guy?

I do not believe these 'gotcha' games shed light on anything. If it is supposed to be 'somebody's sex is not always as obvious as you think', I've already said that sometimes the sex of a person can be ambiguous, especially from a still photo with no interaction with the person.

My instinct, looking at that photo, is that they are all guys. They all look like men in drag.

And to me.

But let us be clear:

First, while humans, cats, dogs, horses, polar bears, red deer, bottlenose dolphins, humpback whales, and a very long etc., can instinctively distinguish between the males and the females of their species by a number of cues - visual or otherwise, depending on the species and the case -, the system is not infallible - no biological system is -, and in particular, it can be circumvented to some extent by means of human technology. So, yes, one can make a female look male or a male female - to some extent. The extent to which the method would work depends on the tech involved, and the specific female or male that uses it.

Second, a picture only provides only visual cues - no voice, for example - and quite limited ones at that, as one cannot take a look from different angles, for example. That very probably makes the error rate higher than in person.

So, while they all look male to me, the degree of confidence is less than in, say, a video, which still would be less than in a case in usual cases where there is no attempt to make a male look female.

 

[bilby]

When your sole excuse for being a rude cunt to strangers is that "it's not (or shouldn't be) illegal to be a rude cunt to strangers", it's probably time for you to re-evaluate your behaviour, and maybe your entire moral code.

I don't need an 'excuse' to refuse to utter the prayers of somebody else's religion.

And yet you thought my post, which named nobody and quoted nobody, required a response from you.

Perhaps you should think more about that.

 

[bilby]

I say, let's follow the advice of the American Academy of Pediatrics!

I'm not big on accepting authority. An authority might agree with me, that's great when it happens. But it's not an argument or evidence beyond somebody's opinion.
Tom

I was not aware that you were anti-science. The official statements of the American Academy of Pediatrics constitite the united opinion of one of the most respected pediatric organizations in the world, and their statements are based on peer reviewed research that must be vetted by the editors of the most high impact peer-reviewed journals in the world.

Since you are anti-science, though, that must not mean very much to you.

There are experts, and then there are experts.

No single option, no matter how expert, a scientific consensus makes.

 

[laughing dog]

You think wrong. You really cannot read minds.

It's true I can't read minds, but you posted that to make the implication that you did.

If you admit you cannot read minds, why do you continue to pretend that you do? As usual, you are badly mistaken about my intentions.

You are mistaken. I

I'm not.

You are mistaken about that.

 

[Jarhyn]

You think wrong. You really cannot read minds.

It's true I can't read minds, but you posted that to make the implication that you did.

If you admit you cannot read minds, why do you continue to pretend that you do? As usual, you are badly mistaken about my intentions.

You are mistaken. I

I'm not.

You are mistaken about that.

So, watch me and tremble as I invoke my secret incantation of mind reading:

Hey LD, what are your intentions, what's on your mind concerning all this for reals?

 

[Metaphor]

When your sole excuse for being a rude cunt to strangers is that "it's not (or shouldn't be) illegal to be a rude cunt to strangers", it's probably time for you to re-evaluate your behaviour, and maybe your entire moral code.

I don't need an 'excuse' to refuse to utter the prayers of somebody else's religion.

And yet you thought my post, which named nobody and quoted nobody, required a response from you.

Perhaps you should think more about that.

No. Your post did not require a response. However, since I am not an idiot, I recognise it was targeted at me.

I don't need to 'think more' about it. I well recognise that other people regard me as "rude" for not obeying the strictures of their religion.

 

[Metaphor]

If you admit you cannot read minds, why do you continue to pretend that you do?

I don't pretend to.

I am sorry that you can't recognise simple activities like 'drawing conclusions from evidence', and mistake them for mind-reading, and that you believe the people drawing the conclusions are pretending to mind-read.

 

[laughing dog]

If you admit you cannot read minds, why do you continue to pretend that you do?

I don't pretend to.

I am sorry that you can't recognise simple activities like 'drawing conclusions from evidence', and mistake them for mind-reading, and that you believe the people drawing the conclusions are pretending to mind-read.

As usual, your conclusion is the result of poor reasoning and a lack of precision in or knowledge of the English language.

I respond to your actual words. I am sorry you don't understand that when you write "but you posted that to make the implication that you did" that imposition of intent appears as a statement of fact. If one meant to clear and precise (something you appear to demand of others), one would preface that "conclusions" with something like "I suspect" or "I conclude that".

Or better yet, stop imputing intent on the part of others. Because there is ample evidence your imputations are terrible.

 

[Enigma]

It's nice to know that a good portion of the modern atheist community these days cares more about being nice than factual accuracy.

Asking for evidence to support the truth of deep-seated beliefs is just being rude.

 

[Metaphor]

one would preface that "conclusions" with something like "I suspect" or "I conclude that".

It is quite obvious that those are my conclusions, because I'm the one making them.

It is also quite obvious that it is dishonest for you to claim I am pretending to mind read.

 

[Jarhyn]

[

one would preface that "conclusions" with something like "I suspect" or "I conclude that".

It is quite obvious that those are my conclusions, because I'm the one making them.

It is also quite obvious that it is dishonest for you to claim I am pretending to mind read.

Yet you claim in a number of posts to be so capable of dissembly. I'll grant this, under the expectation that I only accept it in theory, hypothetical at this point.

Now, this thing that you bring up wherein you believe that people cannot understand inner workings of your mind from your posts (on account of this hypothetical potential for dissembly) would only be important if it were contextual.

So can I read your mind through reading your words here, or can I not?

 

[laughing dog]

one would preface that "conclusions" with something like "I suspect" or "I conclude that".

It is quite obvious that those are my conclusions, because I'm the one making them.

You are responsible for precisely communicating your thoughts. I am not responsible for your poor communication.

It is also quite obvious that it is dishonest for you to claim I am pretending to mind read.

I did not claim you were pretending to mind read. If you cannot resist tossing out accusation of dishonesty, at least you could have the honesty decency to make them accurate.

 

[Metaphor]

Now, this thing that you bring up wherein you believe that people cannot understand inner workings of your mind from your posts (on account of this hypothetical potential for dissembly) would only be important if it were contextual.

So can I read your mind through reading your words here, or can I not?

You cannot read my mind, or anyone's mind, except your own.

You can read my words.

 

[Metaphor]

one would preface that "conclusions" with something like "I suspect" or "I conclude that".

It is quite obvious that those are my conclusions, because I'm the one making them.

You are responsible for precisely communicating your thoughts. I am not responsible for your poor communication.

It is also quite obvious that it is dishonest for you to claim I am pretending to mind read.

I did not claim you were pretending to mind read. If you cannot resist tossing out accusation of dishonesty, at least you could have the honesty decency to make them accurate.

Yes, you did claim I was pretending to mind read, in post 375.

You said

If you admit you cannot read minds, why do you continue to pretend that you do?

 

[Jarhyn]

Now, this thing that you bring up wherein you believe that people cannot understand inner workings of your mind from your posts (on account of this hypothetical potential for dissembly) would only be important if it were contextual.

So can I read your mind through reading your words here, or can I not?

You cannot read my mind, or anyone's mind, except your own.

You can read my words.

And a second time I ask do your words reflect the true contents of your mind or do they not? You are the one who continually claims that they MAY not.

 

[Metaphor]

Now, this thing that you bring up wherein you believe that people cannot understand inner workings of your mind from your posts (on account of this hypothetical potential for dissembly) would only be important if it were contextual.

So can I read your mind through reading your words here, or can I not?

You cannot read my mind, or anyone's mind, except your own.

You can read my words.

And a second time I ask do your words reflect the true contents of your mind or do they not? You are the one who continually claims that they MAY not.

Usually my words reflect what is in my mind in a straightforward way.

Sometimes, my words have a literal meaning the exact opposite of what is in my mind. Of course, this is usually not meant to deceive at all but some people miss obvious cues.

Sometimes, my words do not reflect what is in my mind. For example, when I use a pronoun that is a polite fiction--when I use 'she' for somebody who is male--my words do not reflect what is in my mind.

 

[LoAmmo]

For example, when I use a pronoun that is a polite fiction--when I use 'she' for somebody who is male--my words do not reflect what is in my mind.

And, when, exactly, do you "use 'she' for someone who is male?"

My guess is, "Never." As in, you never do, you never have, and you most assuredly never will, at least knowingly/intentionally.
So, why act as if something you know never happens is something that at least sometimes happens? There's a word for what people are doing when they do that, but I forget at the moment what that is.

One more observation, if I may:

There are LOTS--and by lots, I mean "millions"--of people who would quite vigorously argue that there's no such thing as a man who is sexually attracted to other men (you know, instead of women, like they're supposed to be.) They just know, in their minds, that a man claiming to be genuinely attracted to other men is, guess what--
a "polite fiction."

They'd steadfastly insist that gay people can SAY they're drawn to their same sex. Can ACT like they are. Can implore others to TREAT them as if they're gay, but...they really aren't gay, because being genuinely gay is "impossible." They're "rebelling against God," or "going through a phase," or "need to buckle down and pray," or, insert whatever other dumbass ignorant reason that the person telling the world they're gay can't really be gay.

One might be excused for thinking that a gay man, of all people, would get this relatively simple point. Might even connect the dots between making ONE "polite fiction" an incessant rant, while just casually expecting that his own "polite fiction" be accepted and unremarkable.

And, in your case, they'd be wrong.

 

[laughing dog]

one would preface that "conclusions" with something like "I suspect" or "I conclude that".

It is quite obvious that those are my conclusions, because I'm the one making them.

You are responsible for precisely communicating your thoughts. I am not responsible for your poor communication.

It is also quite obvious that it is dishonest for you to claim I am pretending to mind read.

I did not claim you were pretending to mind read. If you cannot resist tossing out accusation of dishonesty, at least you could have the honesty decency to make them accurate.

Yes, you did claim I was pretending to mind read, in post 375.

You said

If you admit you cannot read minds, why do you continue to pretend that you do?

I do apologize. I did forget that I did.

 

[Metaphor]

And, when, exactly, do you "use 'she' for someone who is male?"

My guess is, "Never." As in, you never do, you never have, and you most assuredly never will, at least knowingly/intentionally.

Okay luv.

So, why act as if something you know never happens is something that at least sometimes happens? There's a word for what people are doing when they do that, but I forget at the moment what that is.

I know the board rules prevent you calling me a 'liar', but perhaps you can skirt around that by saying "I don't believe you" or "I believe your words are counterfactual".

One more observation, if I may:

There are LOTS--and by lots, I mean "millions"--of people who would quite vigorously argue that there's no such thing as a man who is sexually attracted to other men (you know, instead of women, like they're supposed to be.) They just know, in their minds, that a man claiming to be genuinely attracted to other men is, guess what--
a "polite fiction."

They'd steadfastly insist that gay people can SAY they're drawn to their same sex.

You mean trans activists and gender cultists, who say there is no such thing as same-sex attraction, that people are attracted to particular genders? I agree that those gender cultists are delusional.

Can ACT like they are. Can implore others to TREAT them as if they're gay, but...they really aren't gay, because being genuinely gay is "impossible." They're "rebelling against God," or "going through a phase," or "need to buckle down and pray," or, insert whatever other dumbass ignorant reason that the person telling the world they're gay can't really be gay.

Okay...so, what, exactly? I genuinely don't know what I'm supposed to be concerned about here, that some people are delusional?

One might be excused for thinking that a gay man, of all people, would get this relatively simple point. Might even connect the dots between making ONE "polite fiction" an incessant rant, while just casually expecting that his own "polite fiction" be accepted and unremarkable.

And, in your case, they'd be wrong.

I'm sincerely baffled by what you are trying to say.

There are people out there who believe there is no such thing as same-sex attraction. I think I can broadly divide them into two groups:

• Secular religion gender cultists who erase same-sex sexuality and think people are attracted to 'gender' and not sex.
• Mainstream religious people who think people who claim same-sex attractions are doing it to...mock God?

What are you suggesting is the better scenario? That the mainstream religious should continue making polite fictions (from their perspective, of course) and lie to me about their genuine belief in my sexual orientation? Or are you suggesting I should not engage in polite fictions (from my perspective, of course) and I should call transwomen by the pronoun that aligns with their sex ('he').

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Which one is a guy?

My first pick would be Cher.

There's more white guys than black, so, statistically more Chers than Tinas.

The rest are just bimbos I don't recognize. Yeah, I'm old. Sue me.Tom

None of them are Cher, although I do agree one looks sort of like her.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I have a SIL that people have tried to kick out of the women's room.

SIL?

SIL = Sister In Law. One of my wife's sisters.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Which one is a guy?

I do not believe these 'gotcha' games shed light on anything. If it is supposed to be 'somebody's sex is not always as obvious as you think', I've already said that sometimes the sex of a person can be ambiguous, especially from a still photo with no interaction with the person.

My instinct, looking at that photo, is that they are all guys. They all look like men in drag.

Yup, although you did have the context that I had been talking about a drag show.

 

[SigmatheZeta]

I say, let's follow the advice of the American Academy of Pediatrics!

I'm not big on accepting authority. An authority might agree with me, that's great when it happens. But it's not an argument or evidence beyond somebody's opinion.
Tom

I was not aware that you were anti-science. The official statements of the American Academy of Pediatrics constitite the united opinion of one of the most respected pediatric organizations in the world, and their statements are based on peer reviewed research that must be vetted by the editors of the most high impact peer-reviewed journals in the world.

Since you are anti-science, though, that must not mean very much to you.

View attachment 36426

There are experts, and then there are experts.

No single option, no matter how expert, a scientific consensus makes.

I think you might have misinterpreted me, or I was not entirely clear. For one thing, I was not discussing genetics or semantics, but I was discussing the practical clinical care given to transgender children by actual pediatricians. The AAP is actually an appropriate authority for advice on pediatric care of any type. Another pediatric organization would be an appropriate authority from which to seek an alternate opinion, but I am not aware of any.

Furthermore, I have not claimed to know very much at all about intersex people whatsoever. In fact, as a transgender woman, I am really astonishingly ignorant regarding intersex people. I know nothing about them or their particular sensitivities. In fact, I am just as likely as anybody else, if not more so, to accidentally offend one of them. My few experiences with them did, however, give me an insight as to how other people might react to me if I became overzealous about my pronoun enforcement. In fact, that is why I tell people, "I prefer she/her, but if you make mistakes from time to time, I won't hold it against you or even really dislike you. I do not seek perfect compliance, merely a general understanding that masculine pronouns do not really reflect how I see myself." I decided that this would be how I spoke after I got flamed for trying to tell an intersex person, "I am very sorry to have offended you, but I only used the word 'hermaphrodite' because I find the word to be very charming. I was not aware that you did not appreciate it. It might take me a long time to adjust to this because I have habitually used the term, in my own niche communities, ever since 1997, and it is very hard to change a two decade old habit, but I promise that I will try." I realized then that I had asked someone's standing pardon for a social error that they found to be profoundly offensive, and I could not find in myself the nerve to refuse the same sort of pardon to others if I had previously asked for it from somebody else.

Regardless, you would not look for the opinion of a geneticist on how to provide practical clinical care for a transgender CHILD, but you would ask a large, well-vetted pediatric organization that has actively attempted to find a good policy.

Ensuring Comprehensive Care and Support for Transgender and Gender-Diverse Children and Adolescents

As a traditionally underserved population that faces numerous health disparities, youth who identify as transgender and gender diverse (TGD) and their families are increasingly presenting to pediatric providers for education, care, and referrals. The need for more formal training, standardized...

publications.aap.org

There is their official POLICY STATEMENT. That is not just a single study by a single researcher, but it is the policy that the entire organization has gotten behind, united, as their consensus on how to properly provide suitable care to transgender children.

I was answering the fanatical accusations, by our resident <Snip> , that I am motivated by a "gender cult" in the formation of my views on pediatric care. I honestly am unbelievably ignorant about pediatric care and know almost nothing about children except that, theoretically, I used to be one. I have blocked most of my memories of it, though. Therefore, I do not have a personal opinion on the pediatric care of transgender people, but I do believe that it is advisable to seek out an appropriate authority on the subject if one actually is attempting to raise a transgender child. The official policy statement of the AAP constitutes the strongest type of scientific authority because it represents the consensus of several scientists from robustly interdisciplinary backgrounds, not just one.

An appropriate counter-argument would have to be based on the opinions of another pediatric organization, but even that would not make it less valid to argue that a pediatrician that had followed the AAP's advice had done due diligence to seek valid advice on how to proceed in the care of a transgender child, especially if their practice is directly associated with the AAP.

That was all that I meant.

 

[Jarhyn]

I say, let's follow the advice of the American Academy of Pediatrics!

I'm not big on accepting authority. An authority might agree with me, that's great when it happens. But it's not an argument or evidence beyond somebody's opinion.
Tom

I was not aware that you were anti-science. The official statements of the American Academy of Pediatrics constitite the united opinion of one of the most respected pediatric organizations in the world, and their statements are based on peer reviewed research that must be vetted by the editors of the most high impact peer-reviewed journals in the world.

Since you are anti-science, though, that must not mean very much to you.

View attachment 36426

There are experts, and then there are experts.

No single option, no matter how expert, a scientific consensus makes.

I think you might have misinterpreted me, or I was not entirely clear. For one thing, I was not discussing genetics or semantics, but I was discussing the practical clinical care given to transgender children by actual pediatricians. The AAP is actually an appropriate authority for advice on pediatric care of any type. Another pediatric organization would be an appropriate authority from which to seek an alternate opinion, but I am not aware of any.

Furthermore, I have not claimed to know very much at all about intersex people whatsoever. In fact, as a transgender woman, I am really astonishingly ignorant regarding intersex people. I know nothing about them or their particular sensitivities. In fact, I am just as likely as anybody else, if not more so, to accidentally offend one of them. My few experiences with them did, however, give me an insight as to how other people might react to me if I became overzealous about my pronoun enforcement. In fact, that is why I tell people, "I prefer she/her, but if you make mistakes from time to time, I won't hold it against you or even really dislike you. I do not seek perfect compliance, merely a general understanding that masculine pronouns do not really reflect how I see myself." I decided that this would be how I spoke after I got flamed for trying to tell an intersex person, "I am very sorry to have offended you, but I only used the word 'hermaphrodite' because I find the word to be very charming. I was not aware that you did not appreciate it. It might take me a long time to adjust to this because I have habitually used the term, in my own niche communities, ever since 1997, and it is very hard to change a two decade old habit, but I promise that I will try." I realized then that I had asked someone's standing pardon for a social error that they found to be profoundly offensive, and I could not find in myself the nerve to refuse the same sort of pardon to others if I had previously asked for it from somebody else.

Regardless, you would not look for the opinion of a geneticist on how to provide practical clinical care for a transgender CHILD, but you would ask a large, well-vetted pediatric organization that has actively attempted to find a good policy.

Ensuring Comprehensive Care and Support for Transgender and Gender-Diverse Children and Adolescents

As a traditionally underserved population that faces numerous health disparities, youth who identify as transgender and gender diverse (TGD) and their families are increasingly presenting to pediatric providers for education, care, and referrals. The need for more formal training, standardized...

publications.aap.org

There is their official POLICY STATEMENT. That is not just a single study by a single researcher, but it is the policy that the entire organization has gotten behind, united, as their consensus on how to properly provide suitable care to transgender children.

I was answering the fanatical accusations, by our resident <Snip> that is tolerated for reasons that I cannot understand except <snip>, that I am motivated by a "gender cult" in the formation of my views on pediatric care. I honestly am unbelievably ignorant about pediatric care and know almost nothing about children except that, theoretically, I used to be one. I have blocked most of my memories of it, though. Therefore, I do not have a personal opinion on the pediatric care of transgender people, but I do believe that it is advisable to seek out an appropriate authority on the subject if one actually is attempting to raise a transgender child. The official policy statement of the AAP constitutes the strongest type of scientific authority because it represents the consensus of several scientists from robustly interdisciplinary backgrounds, not just one.

An appropriate counter-argument would have to be based on the opinions of another pediatric organization, but even that would not make it less valid to argue that a pediatrician that had followed the AAP's advice had done due diligence to seek valid advice on how to proceed in the care of a transgender child, especially if their practice is directly associated with the AAP.

That was all that I meant.

Mayo clinic also has a very strong stance on the care for transgender children. They are one of the most well respected medical organizations in the world.

If you want to see Metaphor's other hobby horse wake up and go zombie walking across the forum for two weeks though, bring up FGM. I mean, please don't, it's your right but seriously, it's not a great idea. It will be hijacked in two seconds by people complaining (and rightly so) about all genital mutations and "what about men?"

Now, I'm mostly of the opinion that the only person who decides how their genitals may be modified, outside of lifesaving or otherwise organ-saving interventions, is the owner of them.

Metaphor tried so hard to frame a decision made by an individual as adults forcing things on them with regards to genital reassignment surgeries.

You know what was forced on a lot of trans girls by adults who could have done otherwise? Male puberties.

 

[Enigma]

Metaphor tried so hard to frame a decision made by an individual as adults forcing things on them.

You know what was forced on a lot of trans girls by adults who could have done otherwise? Male puberties.

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?

Also:

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.".

 

[Jarhyn]

Metaphor tried so hard to frame a decision made by an individual as adults forcing things on them.

You know what was forced on a lot of trans girls by adults who could have done otherwise? Male puberties.

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.

I'm not entirely unsold on the idea that people should have to opt in to reproductive ability, not opt out. So you're barking up the wrong tree on this one.

I don't think ANYONE has a right to reproduce. Some people are born with the privilege and it's anyone's right to decide not to and I encourage anyone to make that choice because there are too many of us and too many kids who AREN'T babies who need adopting.

Be mad.

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?

Except your alternative is to send them to be "molested by the nurse" instead.

They will have a puberty, assuming they don't stay on blockers after 18. They should get to decide which.

Also:

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 choice is between pain and death. Children who are so vociferous against them are generally just badly raised.

As to the rest of it, you are comparing irreversible lifelong body changes of a decidable nature to transient bullshit.

To say that "you know better" than to let them do something you let someone else their age do... Fucking vile. It's fucking sexist.

If we COULD without needles we ought. And yes, it is a fucked up thing that we have to stab our children with needles. We are driven to apply a small jab to dodge a much more awful one.

They are both shitty. This is why we vaccinate with other methods when they are as effective.

And rape is in many ways seen the way it is because it involves our genitals, sex, and built in orgasm device. It traumatizes our operation of our sexual pleasure.

"The wrong puberty" also traumatizes our operation of our sexual pleasure.

<SNIP>

Would you like to retract/reformulate this argument?

NOPE. I would like you to quit throwing really shitty arguments out against it.

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 "rape-like, but done for a good cause, so it's ok.".

Let me reiterate, however rape is in many ways seen the way it is because it involves our genitals, sex, and built in orgasm device. It traumatizes our operation of our sexual pleasure.

"The wrong puberty" also traumatizes our operation of our sexual pleasure.

 

[Metaphor]

"The wrong puberty" also traumatizes our operation of our sexual pleasure.

True but not in the way you meant it.

Once you halt puberty and then give children wrong-sex hormones, you destroy their sexual pleasure for life.

A roulade of forearm skin isn't a penis.

 

[Jarhyn]

"The wrong puberty" also traumatizes our operation of our sexual pleasure.

True but not in the way you meant it.

Once you halt puberty and then give children wrong-sex hormones, you destroy their sexual pleasure for life.

Hey @SigmatheZeta let me know your thoughts on this?

So many assumptions and absolutely no evidence at all.

My evidence is in fact the overwhelming satisfaction people who do this express.

A roulade of forearm skin isn't a penis.

Nobody claimed it is, and that has nothing to do with hormone replacement. You are thinking of genital reassignment, which is not done for kids.

I often remind you of this but you keep forgetting, and trying to act like this is ever a thing I have endorsed. Please stop that; it would be exceedingly dishonest to make that mistake again.

 

[Metaphor]

Nobody claimed it is, and that has nothing to do with hormone replacement. You are thinking of genital reassignment, which is not done for kids.

Yes, genital 'reassignment' is done on kids, as are mastectomies. That you are ignorant of this while championing medical transition is disturbing but not surprising.

I often remind you of this but you keep forgetting, and trying to act like this is ever a thing I have endorsed. Please stop that; it would be exceedingly dishonest to make that mistake again.

It is exceedingly dishonest of you to say I made implications about your position that I did not.

I implied you endorse halting puberty and giving children wrong-sex hormones. I am, of course, correct about that. Indeed, you not only endorse it, but in my opinion, seem almost religiously excited by the idea.