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

[Jarhyn]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"They will be sterilized!"

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

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

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

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

 

[Metaphor]

"They will be sterilized!"

I could give a shit less of a fuck.

That is an openly evil sentiment to express.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Keith&Co.]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Rhea]

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

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

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

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

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

will that one do?

 

[Rhea]

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

Clarification of Rules

Term of Use: Clarification of Rules

iidb.org

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

 

[Jarhyn]

"They will be sterilized!"

I could give a shit less of a fuck.

That is an openly evil sentiment to express.

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

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

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

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

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

Which compelled you to not say a thing.

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

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

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

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

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

Similarly, defamation and slander can even incorporate true statements.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[TomC]

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

OMFG!
You poor thing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Enigma]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Would you like to retract/reformulate this argument?

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

"They will be sterilized!"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[laughing dog]

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

Another generation of irony meters is annihilated.

 

[TomC]

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

Clarification of Rules

Term of Use: Clarification of Rules

iidb.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

There's another cue.

Love, Tom

 

[Metaphor]

"They will be sterilized!"

I could give a shit less of a fuck.

That is an openly evil sentiment to express.

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

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

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

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

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

Which compelled you to not say a thing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Similarly, defamation and slander can even incorporate true statements.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Metaphor]

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

Another generation of irony meters is annihilated.

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

 

[laughing dog]

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

Another generation of irony meters is annihilated.

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

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

 

[ZiprHead]

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

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

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

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

 

[Metaphor]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[TomC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See you in the morning.
Tom

 

[Angra Mainyu]

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

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

Semantic pedantry constitutes trolling.

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

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

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

Word games will not cause me to stop existing.

Obviously, but in context, that claim of yours:

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

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

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

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

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

It is impolite to raise false and unwarranted accusations.

 

[Rhea]

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

Lindsay Graham would like a word.

 

[Jarhyn]

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

Lindsay Graham would like a word.

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

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

The same goes for not being "cis".

 

[Jarhyn]

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

Another generation of irony meters is annihilated.

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

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

This is what you have a problem with?

Evil sentiments, indeed.