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

[laughing dog]

The worst thing about public outings of trans people, especially with their clear derision to the very concept of someone's Identity, is that they double as clarion calls for mobbing and group attacks.

But someone's need to define people by what they percieve as birth anatomy trumps safety concerns.

Really, when someone looks at another person, they are generally perceiving that person's gender. The fact that for the vast majority of people their gender and their sex is identical confuses the mind and arguments of those sex ideologues.

 

[Jarhyn]

The worst thing about public outings of trans people, especially with their clear derision to the very concept of someone's Identity, is that they double as clarion calls for mobbing and group attacks.

But someone's need to define people by what they percieve as birth anatomy trumps safety concerns.

Really, when someone looks at another person, they are generally perceiving that person's gender. The fact that for the vast majority of people their gender and their sex is identical confuses the mind and arguments of those sex ideologues.

Well, there's another facet to it, too.

Many older members of the LGBT community grew up in a day and age I only barely remember, and I remember it from the perspective of a (deeply self-unaware) gay child of a family of exactly the sort where one or more adults involved think honestly that homosexuality is an abomination.

There was not really room to say "I am a woman" for the trans person. The audacity to decouple sex and gender publicly hadn't been built yet. Ideologies had to be ones that compromised core values for the sake of survival.

Eventually, people tend to come to justify the compromises they have made in the past for the sake of not seeing themselves compromised as thinkers and individuals on some more fundamental level.

There is a cost in it; some are too weak to pay it.

 

[Metaphor]

Then you show us these here, then!

I am disproof that "trans activists" think this. No trans person I know acts like this and they are all activists, some for trans folks, some for wider causes.

You are smearing people, of which I am one.

You have a deep burden to prove a class given ample evidence of those who do not stand where you claim they do, and no evidence of trans activists that do think that way.

Spend one minute on Twitter or TikTok to see what trans activists are demanding.

Indeed, it is a violation of privacy!

It is a violation of someone's privacy to assume their history, past, culture, just by looking at the shape of their eyes or the color of their skin, and then say such things as you assume.

No, it is not. I can't violate somebody's privacy by looking at them in public. It is absurd to think so. I don't even understand how you could get to such a thought.

It is a violation of someone's privacy to assume elements of character from voice, mannerisms, or how someone holds their hands, and then say such things as you assume.

It is not a violation of somebody's privacy to look at them and it is not a violation of somebody's privacy to relate my thoughts about them.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Many older members of the LGBT community grew up in a day and age I only barely remember, and I remember it from the perspective of a (deeply self-unaware) gay child of a family of exactly the sort where one or more adults involved think honestly that homosexuality is an abomination.

There was not really room to say "I am a woman" for the trans person.

Are you suggesting that those trans women believed that "I am a woman" was a true statement back then, in, say, 1980-English or whatever time you have in mind?

That seems pretty improbable, since they were competent English speakers and, as such, they had a good intuitive grasp of the meaning of the term 'woman'.

 

[Metaphor]

I hope it is so tiresome as that you quit attempting to argue impotently against it.

What you think is so absurd I can scarcely believe you believe it.

There is nothing appropriate about abusing language to abuse humans.

You wish to publicly wield language in a way that reveals things about others they would hold as private namely the shape of their genitals.

Observing something somebody chooses to reveal is not violating their privacy. This is such an absurd thing for you to believe I can scarcely believe you believe it.

People do not out you, in general, by calling you "he" because you are "out" as "he". Cis people tend to have that luxury of not having to deal with being outed.

I am not 'out' as a 'he'. I am observably male. I did not reveal my maleness except by existing in public. And by existing in public, I have chosen to allow others to observe me, and observe that I am male.

You can whinge and moan as much as you want. I have offered my arguments and will continue to do so for as long as they stand.

It is not a violation of somebody's privacy to look at them when they are in public. I'm sorry, but what you believe is so absurd I can scarcely believe you believe it.

The worst thing about public outings of trans people, especially with their clear derision to the very concept of someone's Identity, is that they double as clarion calls for mobbing and group attacks.

"Public outing".

When I observe, in the shopping centre, a biological male as biologically male, I am not "outing" him. It is like observing somebody has blond hair and saying 'he has blond hair' or observing somebody who is six feet tall and saying 'he is six feet tall'.

 

[Metaphor]

I answered then I said: Now you answer the same question with trans people the subject.

Care to take a shot at it without the bullshit this time?

Answer what fucking question? Ask the question. Don't say 'the same question'. Ask the question you want me to answer.

You said no gay men want to be called straight. Obviously this is wrong because there are plenty of gay men that are not out and want to be thought of as straight.

No, I fucking did not say that. I said 'gay men did not demand that you look at us and call us straight'. That is not a statement about every individual gay man on the planet. It is a statement about what gay people demanded. We don't demand you think of us as straight or call us straight. Even if some gay men somewhere demanded it, it would be an absurd demand.

 

[Metaphor]

But someone's need to define people by what they percieve as birth anatomy trumps safety concerns.

Really, when someone looks at another person, they are generally perceiving that person's gender. The fact that for the vast majority of people their gender and their sex is identical confuses the mind and arguments of those sex ideologues.

No. I don't know what somebody's gender identity is when I look at them because I don't ask them and I don't care. In fact, I have had sex with people not knowing anything about their gender identities.

But there's always one thing I've known about every person I've had sex with: that they were men.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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

How about somebody in a burka?

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

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You said no gay men want to be called straight. Obviously this is wrong because there are plenty of gay men that are not out and want to be thought of as straight.

Well, they certainly don't want to be called crooked!

 

[Metaphor]

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

How about somebody in a burka?

What about them?

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

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

Has all of this escaped your notice your entire life?

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

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

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

 

[ZiprHead]

I answered then I said: Now you answer the same question with trans people the subject.

Care to take a shot at it without the bullshit this time?

Answer what fucking question? Ask the question. Don't say 'the same question'. Ask the question you want me to answer.

You said no gay men want to be called straight. Obviously this is wrong because there are plenty of gay men that are not out and want to be thought of as straight.

No, I fucking did not say that. I said 'gay men did not demand that you look at us and call us straight'. That is not a statement about every individual gay man on the planet. It is a statement about what gay people demanded. We don't demand you think of us as straight or call us straight. Even if some gay men somewhere demanded it, it would be an absurd demand.

I repeated it in the post you are quoting that you oh so conveniently edited out. Quit bullshitting us.

 

[Metaphor]

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

This is the question you wanted me to answer, with "'trans people' as the subject".

I tried to answer your question and you said I had not answered it. I don't know what it means to make 'trans people' the subject of your question. The subject in your question was 'gay guys', and I said 'it does not make sense to call trans people buttfuckers or cocksuckers, even as an insult.

Write out the question you want me to answer, using the words you wish to use, and don't make me guess what you mean and then accuse me of being deliberately obtuse. Write out the question exactly as you mean it.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

It is a violation of someone's privacy to assume their history, past, culture, just by looking at the shape of their eyes or the color of their skin, and then say such things as you assume.

It would be an instance of jumping to conclusions, but not a violation of privacy. And Metaphor has shown no indication of assuming such things.

It is a violation of someone's privacy to assume elements of character from voice, mannerisms, or how someone holds their hands, and then say such things as you assume.

It would be an instance of jumping to conclusions. But not a violation of privacy. And Metaphor has shown no indication of assuming such things.

 

[ZiprHead]

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

This is the question you wanted me to answer, with "'trans people' as the subject".

I tried to answer your question and you said I had not answered it. I don't know what it means to make 'trans people' the subject of your question. The subject in your question was 'gay guys', and I said 'it does not make sense to call trans people buttfuckers or cocksuckers, even as an insult.

Write out the question you want me to answer, using the words you wish to use, and don't make me guess what you mean and then accuse me of being deliberately obtuse. Write out the question exactly as you mean it.

I bolded the question. You then edited it out. You're not fooling anyone.

 

[Jarhyn]

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

How about somebody in a burka?

What about them?

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

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

Has all of this escaped your notice your entire life?

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

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

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

Most people most of the time should not make an observation so "obvious" as "race", in public or even to themselves if possible.

Just because SOME people can SOMETIMES tell about SOME people merely by looking at them does not justify telling of the thing.

Seriously, it's not OK for kids to point out someone's pissed pants

We are talking explicitly about a population that is ambiguous, and for whom the better they pass, often, the safer they are.

You know, I can imagine a playground with a bunch of kids. There one who has peed their pants, and a bunch of other kids. The one with the pissy drawers is attempting to get away.

Now, I can imagine two very illuminating reactions: the kid who points at the obvious and says "hey, that kid pissed their pants!" And the kid who notices and instead walks out to the front and side of the kid so that nobody can see what happened and can thus escape.

These are two very different reactions to an obvious piece of true information seen. One will result in shame and trauma and the other in a friendship and no trauma, though perhaps still a little shame.

 

[Metaphor]

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

This is the question you wanted me to answer, with "'trans people' as the subject".

I tried to answer your question and you said I had not answered it. I don't know what it means to make 'trans people' the subject of your question. The subject in your question was 'gay guys', and I said 'it does not make sense to call trans people buttfuckers or cocksuckers, even as an insult.

Write out the question you want me to answer, using the words you wish to use, and don't make me guess what you mean and then accuse me of being deliberately obtuse. Write out the question exactly as you mean it.

I bolded the question. You then edited it out. You're not fooling anyone.

Okay, so, you saw there was a miscommunication and, instead of resolving it right away, you wanted to accuse me of doing something I was not doing.

So, the question you bolded was:

Why do you need to call gay men anything other than men, out of interest?

If this is the question you want me to answer, I still need to know what you mean by making 'trans people' the subject.

The subject in that question is 'gay men'. So, a direct translation is:

Why do you need to call trans people anything other than men, out of interest?

I cannot think that's what you meant me to answer, so I'd prefer you to tell me what question you want answered. Write the question out. Stop playing games.

 

[Metaphor]

Most people most of the time should not make an observation so "obvious" as "race", in public or even to themselves if possible.

Alright luv. If you say so. If you are trying to say "I don't see race", then I say "You are full of shit".

Just because SOME people can SOMETIMES tell about SOME people merely by looking at them does not justify telling of the thing.

Alright luv. You can't tell somebody's sex from looking at them. [removed] But your experience of the world is atypical.

These are two very different reactions to an obvious piece of true information seen. One will result in shame and trauma and the other in a friendship and no trauma, though perhaps still a little shame.

Observing somebody's sex is not observing that they pissed their pants. Your analogies are somehow insulting to both sexes.

 

[Jarhyn]

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

This is the question you wanted me to answer, with "'trans people' as the subject".

I tried to answer your question and you said I had not answered it. I don't know what it means to make 'trans people' the subject of your question. The subject in your question was 'gay guys', and I said 'it does not make sense to call trans people buttfuckers or cocksuckers, even as an insult.

Write out the question you want me to answer, using the words you wish to use, and don't make me guess what you mean and then accuse me of being deliberately obtuse. Write out the question exactly as you mean it.

I bolded the question. You then edited it out. You're not fooling anyone.

Okay, so, you saw there was a miscommunication and, instead of resolving it right away, you wanted to accuse me of doing something I was not doing.

So, the question you bolded was:

Why do you need to call gay men anything other than men, out of interest?

If this is the question you want me to answer, I still need to know what you mean by making 'trans people' the subject.

The subject in that question is 'gay men'. So, a direct translation is:

Why do you need to call trans people anything other than men, out of interest?

I cannot think that's what you meant me to answer, so I'd prefer you to tell me what question you want answered. Write the question out. Stop playing games.

Playing games? Let me answer it:

"I don't see any need to point out for anyone else that a man is a trans-man"

You wish to point out that a man is a trans man and was born "a woman" by whatever standard.

Most people most of the time should not make an observation so "obvious" as "race", in public or even to themselves if possible.

Alright luv. If you say so. If you are trying to say "I don't see race", then I say "You are full of shit".

Just because SOME people can SOMETIMES tell about SOME people merely by looking at them does not justify telling of the thing.

Alright luv. You can't tell somebody's sex from looking at them. [removed] impaired. But your experience of the world is atypical.

These are two very different reactions to an obvious piece of true information seen. One will result in shame and trauma and the other in a friendship and no trauma, though perhaps still a little shame.

Observing somebody's sex is not observing that they pissed their pants. Your analogies are somehow insulting to both sexes.

I would stand insult to the idea of sex in the very first place! Your religious belief that it matters in contexts where it does not, and your religious belief that you have the right to out people. I stand holding my middle fingers proudly to this idiotic religion.

Yes, observing that someone was born "male" by whatever standard you wish to use at the moment may be tantamount to pointing at them and proclaiming before all and sundry that they have pissy pants.

That you cannot understand this is exactly the reason we are where we are at this moment.

You keep wanting to avoid the reality that the thing you wish to tell everyone about others that you see is an outing. That you cannot see the general principle that binds all these examples I put before you astounding.

 

[Metaphor]

Playing games? Let me answer it:

"I don't see any need to point out for anyone else that a man is a trans-man"

You wish to point out that a man is a trans man and was born "a woman" by whatever standard.

I don't know who is a trans man and who isn't, because I do not ask, and do not care, about anybody's 'gender identity'. I don't care about your star sign, either, and do not ask for it, and will change the subject if you bring it up.

I cannot see somebody's internal thought processes. But, I have access to my own.

Also, your example is incoherent. If somebody is a trans-man, they are by definition male. You are again relying on the absurd idea that I have magickal divination powers that are available only to chosen ones.

But, here's the deal. If you and I and a trans man ever have a brief encounter, I will promise the following

• I will use the trans man's name, or 'they', and I will pretend that I do not notice she is a woman. I'm not an actor, however, so I can't promise my pretense will not be discoverable
• I will not disclose to you afterwards that the trans man was an adult human female, lest your murderous rage at knowing somebody's sex causes you to hunt her down

I'm worried though because we've already established I am allowed by the Church of Gender Cultists that I ought use 'they' as a pronoun for trans people, where I cannot bring myself to utter the untruth of using the pronoun of the wrong sex. But then you'll know I am talking about a person I believe is trans when I use 'they', and I'll be outing them anyway.

I would stand insult to the idea of sex in the very first place! Your religious belief that it matters in contexts where it does not, and your religious belief that you have the right to our people.

What is religious about my idea that sex is a material reality and that mammals cannot change sex?

Yes, observing that someone was born "male" by whatever standard you wish to use at the moment may be tantamount to pointing at them and proclaiming before all and sundry that they have pissy pants.

There is no shame in being born male, and being male doesn't need scare quotes.

That you cannot understand this is exactly the reason we are where we are at this moment.

You keep wanting to avoid the reality that the thing you wish to tell everyone about others that you see is an outing. That you cannot see the general principle that binds all these examples I put before you astounding.

That you think you have some general principle is indeed astounding.

 

[laughing dog]

But someone's need to define people by what they percieve as birth anatomy trumps safety concerns.

Really, when someone looks at another person, they are generally perceiving that person's gender. The fact that for the vast majority of people their gender and their sex is identical confuses the mind and arguments of those sex ideologues.

No. I don't know what somebody's gender identity is when I look at them because I don't ask them and I don't care.

Yet you make assumptions about it when you use a pronoun. Fascinating.