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

[ZiprHead]

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

Yes. It's extraordinarily simple.

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

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

Hundreds of posts later, it's gotten weird.

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

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

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

It's already been posted in this thread,

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

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

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

 

[TomC]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[TomC]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Metaphor]

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

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

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

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

Referring to me as a cunt would be misgendering.

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

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

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

 

[TomC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Metaphor]

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

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

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

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

 

[Rhea]

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

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

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

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

 

[bilby]

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

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

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

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

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

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

And yes, obviously, profanity is culturally specific.

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

TIA.

 

[SigmatheZeta]

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

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

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

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

 

[Metaphor]

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

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

Semantic pedantry constitutes trolling.

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

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

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

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No. When I use pronouns, I am not doing it to 'give people what they ask for'. I am not doing it to be mean. I am not doing it to be kind. I am doing what accords with reality, and it is unethical of you to try to coerce me to utter things I do not believe.

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

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Jarhyn]

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

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

Semantic pedantry constitutes trolling.

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

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

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

And then we came back around the horn!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"They will be sterilized!"

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

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

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

 

[Metaphor]

No. When I use pronouns, I am not doing it to 'give people what they ask for'. I am not doing it to be mean. I am not doing it to be kind. I am doing what accords with reality, and it is unethical of you to try to coerce me to utter things I do not believe.

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

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

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

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

 

[Metaphor]

"They will be sterilized!"

I could give a shit less of a fuck.

That is an openly evil sentiment to express.

 

[Jarhyn]

"They will be sterilized!"

I could give a shit less of a fuck.

<Insult removed>

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

 

[Metaphor]

"They will be sterilized!"

I could give a shit less of a fuck.

<Insult removed>

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

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

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

 

[Jarhyn]

"They will be sterilized!"

I could give a shit less of a fuck.

<Insult removed>

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Jarhyn]

"They will be sterilized!"

I could give a shit less of a fuck.

That is an openly evil sentiment to express.

No. When I use pronouns, I am not doing it to 'give people what they ask for'. I am not doing it to be mean. I am not doing it to be kind. I am doing what accords with reality, and it is unethical of you to try to coerce me to utter things I do not believe.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Enigma]

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

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

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

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

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

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

"They will be sterilized!"

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

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

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