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

[laughing dog]

But what was the joke? Are there people who think insects are not animals?

The joke was that if people have issues with Gender identification in relation to sex in humans then why stop with humans? Let's tell the asexual worms to knock it off and accept a male or female identity, or cardinal birds stop being both male and females at the same time... Get it now? It was meant to trigger laughter but I failed. It's all good.

I got the joke. It is funny.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

But nothing you wrote dispels the basic notion that pronoun use is most often based on perception not actual body identification.

Then there cannot be any misgendering. If I perceive somebody to be of the sex 'male', I use 'he'.

Didn't you just agree with ld there? He said it is based on perception and you said you use perception to generate a pronoun.

 

[Metaphor]

Don't know what your obsession with genitalia is.

I don't have one. Rhea seems to though--she brings it up continuously even when people have not mentioned genitalia.

Nope. Perceptions can be wrong.

It's true that I can mis-sex somebody, and if I've mis-sexed them and I'm told that, I correct myself.

For example, if I accidentally mis-sex a baby by asking 'what's his name?' and the parent says 'her name is Elizabeth', I will revise my understanding of that baby's sex.

 

[Metaphor]

But nothing you wrote dispels the basic notion that pronoun use is most often based on perception not actual body identification.

Then there cannot be any misgendering. If I perceive somebody to be of the sex 'male', I use 'he'.

Didn't you just agree with ld there? He said it is based on perception and you said you use perception to generate a pronoun.

My perception of a person's sex.

My perception can be right - and it is, about 99.9% of the time.

My perception can be wrong - in which case, I'll have mis-sexed the person.

Note, however, if an adult human whose sex is male says to me 'I am a woman', but I still call him 'he', I have not misperceived and I have not misgendered and I have not mis-sexed.

 

[Metaphor]

But what was the joke? Are there people who think insects are not animals?

The joke was that if people have issues with Gender identification in relation to sex in humans then why stop with humans? Let's tell the asexual worms to knock it off and accept a male or female identity, or cardinal birds stop being both male and females at the same time... Get it now? It was meant to trigger laughter but I failed. It's all good.

Animals don't have 'genders', at least they don't in the way I understand other people to use the term 'gender'.

Non-human animals have sexes, and sometimes those sexes are very different from sex in humans (mammals). Some animals (but not mammals) can change sex. Some animals don't reproduce sexually (so in one sense they are all-female). Who knows what the fuck's going on with bees. Most humans don't freely recognise the sex of animals they are not familiar with. I couldn't tell you the sex of most birds except adult peacocks. (Those peahens must be fucking wild in bed for the cocks to go to that much effort).

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

But nothing you wrote dispels the basic notion that pronoun use is most often based on perception not actual body identification.

Then there cannot be any misgendering. If I perceive somebody to be of the sex 'male', I use 'he'.

Didn't you just agree with ld there? He said it is based on perception and you said you use perception to generate a pronoun.

My perception of a person's sex.

My perception can be right - and it is, about 99.9% of the time.

My perception can be wrong - in which case, I'll have mis-sexed the person.

Note, however, if an adult human whose sex is male says to me 'I am a woman', but I still call him 'he', I have not misperceived and I have not misgendered and I have not mis-sexed.

Nor have you actually understood the universe doesn't revolve around you. It seems somehow you think what is in your mind supercedes what is in their's. And that you think the dangling bits are more important than the part of a person that makes them sentient, and that the universe has purposed you to remind people what junk they've got stored away.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

You are mistaken. Rhea's obvious point is that identification and use of pronouns is typically based on the visual external perception not actual knowledge of genitalia. The accuracy of the identification is irrelevant to her argument. Hence, your argument is irrelevant to her position.

No, her reasoning was:

All through history, the use we have used most often is based on how someone presents because we are not privvy to their genitals.

So it is almost always about gender. The gender they present with.

The problem with that sort of reasoning is that whether a term T refers to - or is about, which is about meaning, not reference but my point is applicable to both - X does not follow from the fact that the fact that an object A has property X is usually used to assess whether T is applicable to some A. That blocks the inference if meant as deductive. If meant as a probabilistic assessment, it fails too because it is easy to construct counterexamples.

Nothing blocks an inference - it may block the accuracy of the inference. So, your reasoning is fallacious.

Yes, in this context, "it blocks the inference if meant as deductive" means it does not logically follow. My reasoning is not fallacious, and cannot be made so by your misconstruing what I mean.

 

[Metaphor]

But nothing you wrote dispels the basic notion that pronoun use is most often based on perception not actual body identification.

Then there cannot be any misgendering. If I perceive somebody to be of the sex 'male', I use 'he'.

Didn't you just agree with ld there? He said it is based on perception and you said you use perception to generate a pronoun.

My perception of a person's sex.

My perception can be right - and it is, about 99.9% of the time.

My perception can be wrong - in which case, I'll have mis-sexed the person.

Note, however, if an adult human whose sex is male says to me 'I am a woman', but I still call him 'he', I have not misperceived and I have not misgendered and I have not mis-sexed.

Nor have you actually understood the universe doesn't revolve around you.

It doesn't revolve around people who believe false things about themselves, either.

It seems somehow you think what is in your mind supercedes what is in their's.

No, actual reality rules over both of us. The person is either of the male sex or they are not.

And that you think the dangling bits are more important than the part of a person that makes them sentient,

The gender ideologue obsession with genitalia again!

and that the universe has purposed you to remind people what junk they've got stored away.

Society has many aspects of sex-segregation and I did not invent them. I am not offended when people 'remind' me of my junk by calling me 'he' (in fact, I'm rarely around when people are talking about me and not to me). Of course, I am not actually reminded of my 'junk' when people call me 'he'. I don't have the genital obsession that gender ideologues appear to have, with everything either reminding them of genitalia, or having their own obsession so out of control they see it in everyone else, too.

 

[Metaphor]

But nothing you wrote dispels the basic notion that pronoun use is most often based on perception not actual body identification.

Perception is almost always based on sex. And it is ALWAYS based on the person doing the perceiving, not on the internal concepts of the person being perceived.

No matter how they self-identify, no matter how they feel inside... I perceive Eddie Izzard and Alex Drummond to be males. If I ever run into either of them in real life, I will engage in the polite fiction of using their preferred feminine pronouns. But inside my head they are both unquestionably men.

Your insistence that what is in your head matters more than what is in their head is absurd!

That you term is "polite fiction" is flat out arrogance. It makes it sound like they are playing D&D and it is just a game or a phase or an act.

This is their identity, who they know they are, who they had to struggle in our world to be openly. But it is so nice of you to pretend that you give a fuck how they feel.

Do you think Rachel Dolezal is black, and it's important to treat her as such? Is what you think about her more important than what she thinks? If people treated her as black, would you call that polite fiction 'arrogant'?

Do you pretend to give a fuck how Rachel Dolezal feels?

 

[Metaphor]

Ships are called 'she', because in English, ships have the gender 'female'.

Actually, no. Sorry. The English language does not gender the noun, 'ship.' That's a nautical tradition, not a language rule.

Probably because the traditional male crew would rather "swab her decks", rather than "his". Or go for a cruise on "her", rather than "him".

Tom

Some of the male crew, I'm sure. Though I hear--and this might just be a rumour--there was some sodomy at sea.

Probably most of the male crew.

But the all male community of a ships crew or the Catholic priesthood will attract a statistically abnormal number of a certain sort of male.

Then there's the prison thing. Men will be boys...
Tom

It was just a (hopefully, comic) indication that homos think there are more homos out there than there really are.

 

[Keith&Co.]

But nothing you wrote dispels the basic notion that pronoun use is most often based on perception not actual body identification.

Then there cannot be any misgendering. If I perceive somebody to be of the sex 'male', I use 'he'.

Nope. Perceptions can be wrong.

When my youngest was six, we were walking thru the mall. He's got curly hair, his mother's cheekbones. Grandma's lips.
Passed a pair of teenaged (apparently) girls.
One said to the other, 'She's a cute little girl.'
The other replied, 'He's a little boy.'
The first, 'Then he's a VERY cute little boy.'

I've changed his diapers. He's a he. Alwsys been a he.
But has been percieved as a she more than once.
What's weird is no one gives a rat's about this story unless and until he wants to be perceived as a girl.

 

[laughing dog]

Don't know what your obsession with genitalia is.

I don't have one. Rhea seems to though--she brings it up continuously even when people have not mentioned genitalia.

Sure Jan.

Nope. Perceptions can be wrong.

It's true that I can mis-sex somebody, and if I've mis-sexed them and I'm told that, I correct myself.

For example, if I accidentally mis-sex a baby by asking 'what's his name?' and the parent says 'her name is Elizabeth', I will revise my understanding of that baby's sex.

In your example, you also misgender the baby.

 

[laughing dog]

You are mistaken. Rhea's obvious point is that identification and use of pronouns is typically based on the visual external perception not actual knowledge of genitalia. The accuracy of the identification is irrelevant to her argument. Hence, your argument is irrelevant to her position.

No, her reasoning was:

All through history, the use we have used most often is based on how someone presents because we are not privvy to their genitals.

So it is almost always about gender. The gender they present with.

The problem with that sort of reasoning is that whether a term T refers to - or is about, which is about meaning, not reference but my point is applicable to both - X does not follow from the fact that the fact that an object A has property X is usually used to assess whether T is applicable to some A. That blocks the inference if meant as deductive. If meant as a probabilistic assessment, it fails too because it is easy to construct counterexamples.

Nothing blocks an inference - it may block the accuracy of the inference. So, your reasoning is fallacious.

Yes, in this context, "it blocks the inference if meant as deductive" means it does not logically follow. My reasoning is not fallacious, and cannot be made so by your misconstruing what I mean.

Your response is mistaken in all aspects. Nothing external to a person can block their inference. Your reasoning is based on a false premise, hence it is fallacious not matter how many times you claim otherwise.

 

[Metaphor]

Don't know what your obsession with genitalia is.

I don't have one. Rhea seems to though--she brings it up continuously even when people have not mentioned genitalia.

Sure Jan.

Nope. Perceptions can be wrong.

It's true that I can mis-sex somebody, and if I've mis-sexed them and I'm told that, I correct myself.

For example, if I accidentally mis-sex a baby by asking 'what's his name?' and the parent says 'her name is Elizabeth', I will revise my understanding of that baby's sex.

In your example, you also misgender the baby.

No. I do not use pronouns to refer to 'gender', whatever that is. I use them to refer to sex.

I cannot misgender a baby because babies do not have a gender identity,

 

[laughing dog]

Don't know what your obsession with genitalia is.

I don't have one. Rhea seems to though--she brings it up continuously even when people have not mentioned genitalia.

Sure Jan.

Nope. Perceptions can be wrong.

It's true that I can mis-sex somebody, and if I've mis-sexed them and I'm told that, I correct myself.

For example, if I accidentally mis-sex a baby by asking 'what's his name?' and the parent says 'her name is Elizabeth', I will revise my understanding of that baby's sex.

In your example, you also misgender the baby.

No. I do not use pronouns to refer to 'gender', whatever that is. I use them to refer to sex.

Sure Jan, whatever make you feel secure.

I cannot misgender a baby because babies do not have a gender identity,

I forgot I was not in this world but Wonderland. In this world, people have gender and sex. Babies have gender identities even if they are not aware of them.

 

[ZiprHead]

I think this change and thread is going to make Metaphor's head explode.

Is your gender field entry, an inanimate thing, a cue that you prefer being referred to as "it"?
Tom

I don't care what you call me, just don't call me late for dinner.

 

[Metaphor]

I forgot I was not in this world but Wonderland. In this world, people have gender and sex. Babies have gender identities even if they are not aware of them.

I think this marks the exit ramp of discussion. I don't subscribe to your religion but I wish you all the best.

 

[laughing dog]

I forgot I was not in this world but Wonderland. In this world, people have gender and sex. Babies have gender identities even if they are not aware of them.

I think this marks the exit ramp of discussion. I don't subscribe to your religion but I wish you all the best.

I meant that babies do have an identity in a gender. And I suspect that babies after more than a couple of months have some awareness of their gender.

 

[Jarhyn]

It is a crap argument because it is imagining stuff instead of talking about actual transgender people. This type of person has always existed, and people are still struggling to come to grips with it, and addicted to labels. They are ignoring the human factors involved and nestling up with grammar as if it were some type of blankie.

I disagree with the sentiment of your post.

Yes, people with gender dysphoria have always existed. But for the most part, nobody has trouble coming to grips with people who have extreme dysphoria.

Umm... bullshit!

It doesn't bother Emily Lake =/ no one is bothered by it. We only decriminalized gay sex two decades ago!

They've been around for pretty much all of recorded history. They've mostly been males who strongly and persistently identify as female, and there is likely a gestational trigger or a genetic component to that occurrence.

And they have, in the majority of human history, been accommodated and incorporated into society.

Really, because changing a pronoun here or there is making a number of people freak the heck out.

What people are not on-board with is...

Umm, you are speaking for A LOT of people here.

extending the entire concept to include self-declaration with no history and no reasonable definition of "transgender", whereby it can apply to anyone for any reason whatsoever. What people are not on-board with is extending it to include people who identify as non-human, or as no-sex, or as fictional animal characters, or as mythical beings... and who wish to be accommodated as such. What people often object to is the demand that everyone else pretend that this internal view of themselves is more important than, and should replace the reality of, sex... and should grant immediate and unquestioned access to sex-exclusive space or to services where sex is material and relevant.

You are stuffing so many words into people's mouths here, one would swear it was Thanksgiving Dinner.

For someone one who makes a lot of references to rape, she DOES have a way of stuffing things into folks' mouths.

You know, my husband has food trauma, because his mother would force feed him when he would not eat what he was given. It has led to certain health problems, even.

Really, humanity only really offers (T or E)*(0...1...inf.) for puberty purposes, and for hormonal state.

Various people function at varying levels of happiness and capability at varying positions on that scale, usually in the 0-1 range, where 1 is exposure of someone at one or the other of the highest two distinct peaks in the distribution.

What determines where someone best functions is the shape of their brains.

Beyond this there is a highly comorbid distribution within a variety of behaviors and presentations and modes of communication that splits in similarly binary ways.

In any given situation people generally, on account of our herd instincts, seek to resonate more strongly with one than the other. And on account of who we are, something happens to make us want one more than the other of any given offering of behavior, or perhaps some other less common thing off the binary entirely.

I forgot I was not in this world but Wonderland. In this world, people have gender and sex. Babies have gender identities even if they are not aware of them.

I think this marks the exit ramp of discussion. I don't subscribe to your religion but I wish you all the best.

It's science, but I think you hit an exit off that a few mile markers back. Or possibly a few state lines ago.

Have you evolved your model at all since the stonewall era?

 

[Metaphor]

It is a crap argument because it is imagining stuff instead of talking about actual transgender people. This type of person has always existed, and people are still struggling to come to grips with it, and addicted to labels. They are ignoring the human factors involved and nestling up with grammar as if it were some type of blankie.

I disagree with the sentiment of your post.

Yes, people with gender dysphoria have always existed. But for the most part, nobody has trouble coming to grips with people who have extreme dysphoria.

Umm... bullshit!

It doesn't bother Emily Lake =/ no one is bothered by it. We only decriminalized gay sex two decades ago!

They've been around for pretty much all of recorded history. They've mostly been males who strongly and persistently identify as female, and there is likely a gestational trigger or a genetic component to that occurrence.

And they have, in the majority of human history, been accommodated and incorporated into society.

Really, because changing a pronoun here or there is making a number of people freak the heck out.

What people are not on-board with is...

Umm, you are speaking for A LOT of people here.

extending the entire concept to include self-declaration with no history and no reasonable definition of "transgender", whereby it can apply to anyone for any reason whatsoever. What people are not on-board with is extending it to include people who identify as non-human, or as no-sex, or as fictional animal characters, or as mythical beings... and who wish to be accommodated as such. What people often object to is the demand that everyone else pretend that this internal view of themselves is more important than, and should replace the reality of, sex... and should grant immediate and unquestioned access to sex-exclusive space or to services where sex is material and relevant.

You are stuffing so many words into people's mouths here, one would swear it was Thanksgiving Dinner.

For someone one who makes a lot of references to rape, she DOES have a way of stuffing things into folks' mouths.

You know, my husband has food trauma, because his mother would force feed him when he would not eat what he was given. It has led to certain health problems, even.

Really, humanity only really offers (T or E)*(0...1...inf.) for puberty purposes, and for hormonal state.

Various people function at varying levels of happiness and capability at varying positions on that scale, usually in the 0-1 range, where 1 is exposure of someone at one or the other of the highest two distinct peaks in the distribution.

What determines where someone best functions is the shape of their brains.

Beyond this there is a highly comorbid distribution within a variety of behaviors and presentations and modes of communication that splits in similarly binary ways.

In any given situation people generally, on account of our herd instincts, seek to resonate more strongly with one than the other. And on account of who we are, something happens to make us want one more than the other of any given offering of behavior, or perhaps some other less common thing off the binary entirely.

I forgot I was not in this world but Wonderland. In this world, people have gender and sex. Babies have gender identities even if they are not aware of them.

I think this marks the exit ramp of discussion. I don't subscribe to your religion but I wish you all the best.

It's science, but I think you hit an exit off that a few mile markers back. Or possibly a few state lines ago.

Have you evolved your model at all since the stonewall era?

Babies don't have a gender identity. Babies don't know that there are two sexes in mammals. Babies do not perceive themselves as a particular gender. Babies can feel pain and they can feel comfort. To say babies have a gender identity is to say babies have souls.

I don't subscribe to your religion.