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

[Jarhyn]

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.

A very rude behavior indeed.

I cannot see somebody's internal thought processes.

Oh, you very much can. It relies on a very simple incantation that I can perhaps teach you. The words of it go "Hello, my name is <your name here>, and my pronouns are He/Him."

Then an event will magically happen in the event that their internal thought process was not so obvious to you: waves of energy will fly across the air at you and a part in your skull will vibrate with those waves of energy and you will then be given the insight you lack.

But, I have access to my own.

...

Also, your example is incoherent. If somebody is a trans-man, they are by definition male.

Unagreed premise of definition.

You are again relying on the absurd idea that I have magickal divination powers that are available only to chosen ones.

Perhaps you do lack such powers as I have described to form together such powerful utterances as would give you such insights.

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?

This is not the religious belief. The religious belief is "that it matters in contexts where it does not, and that you have a right to out people".

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.

It's in quotes because you are the only one between us who accepts your definitions, so as to reject your basic fundamental premises, even as I reject the conclusions you draw from them also from faulty lines of reasoning.

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.

...

 

[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.

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

No. When I use a sexed pronoun, I am making an assumption about a person's sex.

Very, very rarely, I am wrong about their sex.

When I am not sure or don't know, I use 'they'.

 

[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.

No. When I use a sexed pronoun, I am making an assumption about a person's sex.

Fascinating. I am much more interested in the person as a person, not their anatomy.

Very, very rarely, I am wrong about their sex.\

That is probably true, because most people's sex and gender identity are the same.

 

[Metaphor]

A very rude behavior indeed.

"I am not interested in your religion, I am an atheist" is a blunt but civil thing to say to proselytisers.

Oh, you very much can. It relies on a very simple incantation that I can perhaps teach you. The words of it go "Hello, my name is <your name here>, and my pronouns are He/Him."

Then an event will magically happen in the event that their internal thought process was not so obvious to you: waves of energy will fly across the air at you and a part in your skull will vibrate with those waves of energy and you will then be given the insight you lack.

You are incorrect. What somebody utters does not need to be a representation of their internal thought processes.

Also, I don't care to hear people's self-description of their personality. I just don't care.

Unagreed premise of definition.

Embarrassing slip on my part. Trans men are female, by definition. Or, if you like, they were 'assigned female at birth', which means they are female.

The religious belief is "that it matters in contexts where it does not, and that you have a right to out people".

I have a list of contexts where sex matters. Do you know my list?

It's in quotes because you are the only one between us who accepts your definitions, so as to reject your basic fundamental premises, even as I reject the conclusions you draw from them also from faulty lines of reasoning.

If you reject sex in animals as a material reality, then I don't know what to say to you. This dialogue cannot proceed coherently.

 

[Metaphor]

Fascinating. I am much more interested in the person as a person, not their anatomy.

Fascinating that you think it follows that 'using pronouns that accords with a person's sex' implies that I'm not interested in people as people.

That is probably true, because most people's sex and gender identity are the same.

My sex and gender are not the same. I have a sex but I don't have a gender identity. The correct pronoun to use for me--and any human or other animal--is the pronoun that accords with my sex.

 

[Jarhyn]

A very rude behavior indeed.

"I am not interested in your religion, I am an atheist" is a blunt but civil thing to say to proselytisers.

Oh, you very much can. It relies on a very simple incantation that I can perhaps teach you. The words of it go "Hello, my name is <your name here>, and my pronouns are He/Him."

Then an event will magically happen in the event that their internal thought process was not so obvious to you: waves of energy will fly across the air at you and a part in your skull will vibrate with those waves of energy and you will then be given the insight you lack.

You are incorrect. What somebody utters does not need to be a representation of their internal thought processes.

Also, I don't care to hear people's self-description of their personality. I just don't care.

What someone utters is unequivocally a result of and thus representation of their internal thought process.

You have the power that you claimed you lack, and at least now you admit that "you just don't care". At least we are a whole step towards good faith from wherever you were standing.

Unagreed premise of definition.

Embarrassing slip on my part. Trans men are female, by definition. Or, if you like, they were 'assigned female at birth', which means they are female.

But your definition, which is an unagreed premise still. But the question did lt use "male/female".

The religious belief is "that it matters in contexts where it does not, and that you have a right to out people".

I have a list of contexts where sex matters. Do you know my list?

I could give you a list of situations wherein: the ability to make someone pregnant matters (is subordinate to but not actually directly "sex"), where the body someone has had grow up around their brain matters (which is in some ways affected by sex, but is after the body is grown otherwise unrelated to sex), whether someone is a known lecherous pervert (which is again not sex)...

It seems rather sexist to make decisions that effectively bin everyone born with an organ longer than an inch as a violent, fertile pervert.

It's in quotes because you are the only one between us who accepts your definitions, so as to reject your basic fundamental premises, even as I reject the conclusions you draw from them also from faulty lines of reasoning.

If you reject sex in animals as a material reality, then I don't know what to say to you. This dialogue cannot proceed coherently.

I reject any importance you place on what I judge as an incoherent and facile model of sex.

 

[Metaphor]

What someone utters is unequivocally a result of and thus representation of their internal thought process.

No. I can utter something that I do not believe. Some people want to force me to utter things I do not believe.

You have the power that you claimed you lack,

I have the power to ask people questions. I do not have the power to read their mind.

and at least now you admit that "you just don't care". At least we are a whole step towards good faith from wherever you were standing.

I don't care what somebody claims is their gender identity, any more than I care what somebody says their star sign is.

I might pretend momentary interest or refrain from telling them I don't care, as a polite fiction,but I cannot honestly say I care when I don't.

But your definition, which is an unagreed premise still. But the question did lt use "male/female".

My definition of a 'trans man' is an adult human female with the gender identity 'male'.

It seems rather sexist to make decisions that effectively bin everyone born with an organ longer than an inch as a violent, fertile pervert.

I didn't do that.

I reject any importance you place on what I judge as an incoherent and facile model of sex.

You are free to quit biological reality, but biological reality can't quit you.

 

[Jarhyn]

What someone utters is unequivocally a result of and thus representation of their internal thought process.

No. I can utter something that I do not believe. Some people want to force me to utter things I do not believe.

And it would most certainly be a representation of your internal thought process, as represented by the shapes that your vocal cords make when you open your mouth tangentially to those thoughts, however twisted by bad faith they may be.

I admit physically I could utter something I do not believe. It requires some extraordinary circumstances to bring this about, and the ethical contexts of lying are very complicated. In most contexts, about 5-10 seconds later I compulsively blurt out the truth, mostly owing to a well farmed emotional response to despise true bad faith.

You have the power that you claimed you lack,

I have the power to ask people questions. I do not have the power to read their mind.

You fail to see that the reality of how people read minds is by asking questions and listening to the words that come back, or the words that don't.

and at least now you admit that "you just don't care". At least we are a whole step towards good faith from wherever you were standing.

I don't care what somebody claims is their gender identity, any more than I care what somebody says their star sign is.

I shouldn't have said anything, I guess. One step forward...

I might pretend momentary interest or refrain from telling them I don't care, as a polite fiction,but I cannot honestly say I care when I don't.

But your definition, which is an unagreed premise still. But the question did lt use "male/female".

My definition of a 'trans man' is an adult human female with the gender identity 'male'.

It seems rather sexist to make decisions that effectively bin everyone born with an organ longer than an inch as a violent, fertile pervert.

I didn't do that.

Not in this thread. Yet. You merely offered to.

I reject any importance you place on what I judge as an incoherent and facile model of sex.

You are free to quit biological reality, but biological reality can't quit you.

Oh, there's a joke here brewing...

 

[Rhea]

So much struggle against just using the gender people ask, on a message board.
A simple field people can fill in, if they want to, to say “use this gender.”
And more than 300 posts to complain about it.

 

[Metaphor]

And it would most certainly be a representation of your internal thought process, as represented by the shapes that your vocal cords make when you open your mouth tangentially to those thoughts, however twisted by bad faith they may be.

No. That I can utter things I do not believe means my speech would not represent my inner mental workings.

I admit physically I could utter something I do not believe. It requires some extraordinary circumstances to bring this about, and the ethical contexts of lying are very complicated. In most contexts, about 5-10 seconds later I compulsively blurt out the truth, mostly owing to a well farmed emotional response to despise true bad faith.

I see. So you merely expect me to utter things I do not believe.

You fail to see that the reality of how people read minds is by asking questions and listening to the words that come back, or the words that don't.

That isn't reading somebody's mind, luv. Not even figuratively speaking.

Not in this thread. Yet. You merely offered to.

No, I don't believe males are all violent predators.

 

[Metaphor]

So much struggle against just using the gender people ask, on a message board.
A simple field people can fill in, if they want to, to say “use this gender.”
And more than 300 posts to complain about it.

Who complained?

 

[laughing dog]

Fascinating. I am much more interested in the person as a person, not their anatomy.

Fascinating that you think it follows that 'using pronouns that accords with a person's sex' implies that I'm not interested in people as people.

You think wrong. You really cannot read minds.

That is probably true, because most people's sex and gender identity are the same.

My sex and gender are not the same. I have a sex but I don't have a gender identity. The correct pronoun to use for me--and any human or other animal--is the pronoun that accords with my sex.

You are mistaken. I

 

[Metaphor]

You think wrong. You really cannot read minds.

It's true I can't read minds, but you posted that to make the implication that you did.

You are mistaken. I

I'm not.

 

[Jarhyn]

Fascinating. I am much more interested in the person as a person, not their anatomy.

Fascinating that you think it follows that 'using pronouns that accords with a person's sex' implies that I'm not interested in people as people.

You think wrong. You really cannot read minds.

He could if he actually payed attention to the words those.minds were broadcasting.

Let me read your mind: you don't think metaphor can read minds!

 

[Metaphor]

Fascinating. I am much more interested in the person as a person, not their anatomy.

Fascinating that you think it follows that 'using pronouns that accords with a person's sex' implies that I'm not interested in people as people.

You think wrong. You really cannot read minds.

He could if he actually payed attention to the words those.minds were broadcasting.

Let me read your mind: you don't think metaphor can read minds!

You didn't read his mind. You read his words.

 

[Jarhyn]

Fascinating. I am much more interested in the person as a person, not their anatomy.

Fascinating that you think it follows that 'using pronouns that accords with a person's sex' implies that I'm not interested in people as people.

You think wrong. You really cannot read minds.

He could if he actually payed attention to the words those.minds were broadcasting.

Let me read your mind: you don't think metaphor can read minds!

You didn't read his mind. You read his words.

The words produced by his mind, in the way minds communicate in general...

 

[Metaphor]

Fascinating. I am much more interested in the person as a person, not their anatomy.

Fascinating that you think it follows that 'using pronouns that accords with a person's sex' implies that I'm not interested in people as people.

You think wrong. You really cannot read minds.

He could if he actually payed attention to the words those.minds were broadcasting.

Let me read your mind: you don't think metaphor can read minds!

You didn't read his mind. You read his words.

The words produced by his mind, in the way minds communicate in general...

laughing dog's words may or may not be a representation of what he believes.

In fact, you don't even appear to understand the context of how people use the term 'mind-reader'. It arises, in one context, where people think there is a conflict between what somebody says and what they really believe (that is what is 'in their mind').

I can't read minds and I am certain people cannot read my mind, as is made apparent by the interpretations people put on my words and their willingness to call me a 'troll', as if I do not believe I believe the things I am saying.

 

[SigmatheZeta]

I say, let's follow the advice of the American Academy of Pediatrics!

 

[Metaphor]

I say, let's follow the advice of the American Academy of Pediatrics!

I say, fuck the 'advice' of any 'academy' that endorses male infant genital mutilation.

Fuck them to hell and back. Fuck the horse they rode in on. Fuck. Those. Cunts.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I say, let's follow the advice of the American Academy of Pediatrics!

I say: my arguments are independent of the advice of the American Academy of Pediatrics. They neither endorse it nor reject it. They're arguments about something else - and your earlier reply to me involving the advice of the American Academy of Pediatrics did not address my points.