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

[Emily Lake]

I have already brought ample evidence forward that gender identity not commensurate with birth assignment is rooted in variances in the natural development of the human brain, and I have unmistakably proved that gender-affirmation is morally necessary.

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

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

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

I think your evidence is quite valuable, and I've never doubted that gender dysphoria is real.

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

 

[Metaphor]

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

I think Ms. Dolezal was treated very badly. I consider it racist.

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

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

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

 

[Metaphor]

No, the problem with your reasoning remains the same: you are conflating the observations used to ascertain whether a person is a man or a woman (secondary sex characteristics) and/or to use a pronouns, with the properties that 'man' or 'woman' assign to a person and/or the properties those words (and the corresponding pronouns) refer to.

Perhaps a slightly different approach?

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

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

Alternatively...

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

This thing that looks like a steak...
View attachment 36386

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

I'ma make some steak for lunch I think.

 

[SigmatheZeta]

I have already brought ample evidence forward that gender identity not commensurate with birth assignment is rooted in variances in the natural development of the human brain, and I have unmistakably proved that gender-affirmation is morally necessary.

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

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

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

I think your evidence is quite valuable, and I've never doubted that gender dysphoria is real.

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

The only way you can really get to know somebody is to get to know them.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I have already brought ample evidence forward that gender identity not commensurate with birth assignment is rooted in variances in the natural development of the human brain, and I have unmistakably proved that gender-affirmation is morally necessary.

No, you have not shown that what you call "gender-affirmation" is morally necessary. I have shown that the accusations of misgendering and the like are generally false.

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

You missed the points entirely, and then grossly misrepresented what I said, and attacked me. And when I wrote a long reply in self-defense, I find that the thread was closed 10 minutes before I can post it. I waited, but was not opened again - though there was yet another post against me.

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

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

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

But no semantic pedantry was involved; instead, arguments that defeat your ideology but which neither you nor your supporters have understood or engaged - you and they just attacked arguments that have nothing to do with them.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

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

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

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

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

 

[Jarhyn]

And then we come back around to the sophistry.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[TomC]

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

I think Ms. Dolezal was treated very badly. I consider it racist.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[TomC]

They do not misgender.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Emily Lake]

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

I'ma make some steak for lunch I think.

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

 

[Emily Lake]

The only way you can really get to know somebody is to get to know them.

Sure, that's generally a good approach. I'd also say "when someone shows you who they are, believe them". There are a fair number of people out there whose behavior leads me to think that there are multiple categories under the current transgender umbrella, and that perhaps different approaches are needed for different categories.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Gospel]

And frankly, my persona is more towards the "macho shithead" end of the gender spectrum

I doubt it's only on the gender spectrum.

 

[Emily Lake]

Gender is an abstraction, race somewhat less so.

I don't really know how to read this.

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

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

 

[TomC]

And frankly, my persona is more towards the "macho shithead" end of the gender spectrum

I doubt it's only on the gender spectrum.

Ha ha ha!

Throw your dick up on the table and say that again, mofo.

Tom

 

[Metaphor]

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

I think Ms. Dolezal was treated very badly. I consider it racist.

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

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

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

OK. You got me. I've never cared enough about this issue to do any research at all. I just Wikied her, and yeah she's a psychotic fraudster.

What? You didn't even know who she was or what she did?

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

To me, though, it's not about race. She just doesn't grasp the distinction between what she wants to believe at the moment and reality*.

She wants to believe she is black, and she wants others to believe she is black, to treat her as if she were black.

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

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

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

But why don't you?

Gender is an abstraction, race somewhat less so.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Metaphor]

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

Non. Bullying others into complying with fantasy is just the act of a sadistic fuckface.

 

[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.

Non.

If this is incorrect I'm sure you can point out how.

 

[Metaphor]

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

Non.

If this is incorrect I'm sure you can point out how.

Pronoun usage is not 'giving people what they ask for', whether those pronouns align with gender identity or not. Your framing is mistaken.

 

[TomC]

I hate to ask you again, Tom, since you seem to be the only one to attempt to answer questions about her, but what makes Dolezal a 'psychotic fraudster'?

Rachel Dolezal is, at least, her third name.

She claimed her father is black.

She claimed she was sexually molested by her brother.

She smolletted the police.

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

According to Wikipedia.

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

 

[Metaphor]

I hate to ask you again, Tom, since you seem to be the only one to attempt to answer questions about her, but what makes Dolezal a 'psychotic fraudster'?

Rachel Dolezal is, at least, her third name.

Right...so?

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

She claimed her father is black.

Don't transgender males claim to be women? Why is one a fraudulent claim but not the other?

She claimed she was sexually molested by her brother.

I did not know about that claim, but if it is a false claim that is awful behaviour from Dolezal.

She smolletted the police.

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

According to Wikipedia.

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

There are other people who have a transracial identity who are not Dolezal. The YouTube personality Oli London, for example. Do you believe his claim to be trans-Korean should be respected?