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

[TomC]

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

I'm not big on accepting authority. An authority might agree with me, that's great when it happens. But it's not an argument or evidence beyond somebody's opinion.
Tom

 

[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?

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?

I am routinely mistaken for female on the phone. Obviously, at least after passing through the frequency filters of the phone people can't tell the gender of my voice. And in hiking in the winter I have often found myself unable to determine someone's gender without seeing their face--in evening winter hiking (after work, but that ends up being after dark) I have gotten gender wrong. I have a SIL that people have tried to kick out of the women's room.

Just because we can do it quite well in the easy cases doesn't mean we can always do it.

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.

Which one is a guy?

 

[Jarhyn]

Just because we can do it quite well in the easy cases doesn't mean we can always do it.

And more importantly just because we can, (assuming we can), does not mean that we should in the first place. And just because we can manage to not, if we can manage such a feat, does not mean that we should even still offer such information where it may be excluded except when we choose to opt into it.

That most people do opt in, and do so freely, is their own business. Good for them. And good for everyone that opts out. And good for everyone that options something less expected.

 

[bilby]

When your sole excuse for being a rude cunt to strangers is that "it's not (or shouldn't be) illegal to be a rude cunt to strangers", it's probably time for you to re-evaluate your behaviour, and maybe your entire moral code.

 

[TomC]

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?

I am routinely mistaken for female on the phone. Obviously, at least after passing through the frequency filters of the phone people can't tell the gender of my voice. And in hiking in the winter I have often found myself unable to determine someone's gender without seeing their face--in evening winter hiking (after work, but that ends up being after dark) I have gotten gender wrong. I have a SIL that people have tried to kick out of the women's room.

Just because we can do it quite well in the easy cases doesn't mean we can always do it.

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.

Which one is a guy?

My first pick would be Cher.

There's more white guys than black, so, statistically more Chers than Tinas.

The rest are just bimbos I don't recognize. Yeah, I'm old. Sue me.Tom

 

[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?

I am routinely mistaken for female on the phone. Obviously, at least after passing through the frequency filters of the phone people can't tell the gender of my voice. And in hiking in the winter I have often found myself unable to determine someone's gender without seeing their face--in evening winter hiking (after work, but that ends up being after dark) I have gotten gender wrong. I have a SIL that people have tried to kick out of the women's room.

Just because we can do it quite well in the easy cases doesn't mean we can always do it.

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.

Which one is a guy?

My first pick would be Cher.

There's more white guys than black, so, statistically more Chers than Tinas.

The rest are just bimbos I don't recognize. Yeah, I'm old. Sue me.Tom

I think if any of them asked me, I'd just say "hun, all imma say is I think you're gorgeous, and I'm jealous. It's not my place to put a pronoun on it though, you tell me what's right and when it's right."

 

[Metaphor]

When your sole excuse for being a rude cunt to strangers is that "it's not (or shouldn't be) illegal to be a rude cunt to strangers", it's probably time for you to re-evaluate your behaviour, and maybe your entire moral code.

I don't need an 'excuse' to refuse to utter the prayers of somebody else's religion.

 

[SigmatheZeta]

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

I'm not big on accepting authority. An authority might agree with me, that's great when it happens. But it's not an argument or evidence beyond somebody's opinion.
Tom

I was not aware that you were anti-science. The official statements of the American Academy of Pediatrics constitite the united opinion of one of the most respected pediatric organizations in the world, and their statements are based on peer reviewed research that must be vetted by the editors of the most high impact peer-reviewed journals in the world.

Since you are anti-science, though, that must not mean very much to you.

 

[Metaphor]

I am routinely mistaken for female on the phone. Obviously, at least after passing through the frequency filters of the phone people can't tell the gender of my voice.

That your voice might not be obviously male or female is not the same thing as people mistaking your gender. In any case, I have already said it is more difficult to know somebody's sex when talking to them over the phone, and sometimes I don't know just from a lo-fi phone call.

And in hiking in the winter I have often found myself unable to determine someone's gender without seeing their face--in evening winter hiking (after work, but that ends up being after dark) I have gotten gender wrong.

You mean: you couldn't determine their sex without seeing their face.

I have a SIL that people have tried to kick out of the women's room.

SIL?

Just because we can do it quite well in the easy cases doesn't mean we can always do it.

I never claimed I could always do it with 100% accuracy.

 

[Metaphor]

Which one is a guy?

I do not believe these 'gotcha' games shed light on anything. If it is supposed to be 'somebody's sex is not always as obvious as you think', I've already said that sometimes the sex of a person can be ambiguous, especially from a still photo with no interaction with the person.

My instinct, looking at that photo, is that they are all guys. They all look like men in drag.

 

[TomC]

I was not aware that you were anti-science.

I already don't like you and your mansplaining.

If you prefer things this way, you go right ahead and dragon me.

Love you. Mean it.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Which one is a guy?

I do not believe these 'gotcha' games shed light on anything. If it is supposed to be 'somebody's sex is not always as obvious as you think', I've already said that sometimes the sex of a person can be ambiguous, especially from a still photo with no interaction with the person.

My instinct, looking at that photo, is that they are all guys. They all look like men in drag.

And to me.

But let us be clear:

First, while humans, cats, dogs, horses, polar bears, red deer, bottlenose dolphins, humpback whales, and a very long etc., can instinctively distinguish between the males and the females of their species by a number of cues - visual or otherwise, depending on the species and the case -, the system is not infallible - no biological system is -, and in particular, it can be circumvented to some extent by means of human technology. So, yes, one can make a female look male or a male female - to some extent. The extent to which the method would work depends on the tech involved, and the specific female or male that uses it.

Second, a picture only provides only visual cues - no voice, for example - and quite limited ones at that, as one cannot take a look from different angles, for example. That very probably makes the error rate higher than in person.

So, while they all look male to me, the degree of confidence is less than in, say, a video, which still would be less than in a case in usual cases where there is no attempt to make a male look female.

 

[bilby]

When your sole excuse for being a rude cunt to strangers is that "it's not (or shouldn't be) illegal to be a rude cunt to strangers", it's probably time for you to re-evaluate your behaviour, and maybe your entire moral code.

I don't need an 'excuse' to refuse to utter the prayers of somebody else's religion.

And yet you thought my post, which named nobody and quoted nobody, required a response from you.

Perhaps you should think more about that.

 

[bilby]

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

I'm not big on accepting authority. An authority might agree with me, that's great when it happens. But it's not an argument or evidence beyond somebody's opinion.
Tom

I was not aware that you were anti-science. The official statements of the American Academy of Pediatrics constitite the united opinion of one of the most respected pediatric organizations in the world, and their statements are based on peer reviewed research that must be vetted by the editors of the most high impact peer-reviewed journals in the world.

Since you are anti-science, though, that must not mean very much to you.

There are experts, and then there are experts.

No single option, no matter how expert, a scientific consensus makes.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

If you admit you cannot read minds, why do you continue to pretend that you do? As usual, you are badly mistaken about my intentions.

You are mistaken. I

I'm not.

You are mistaken about that.

 

[Jarhyn]

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.

If you admit you cannot read minds, why do you continue to pretend that you do? As usual, you are badly mistaken about my intentions.

You are mistaken. I

I'm not.

You are mistaken about that.

So, watch me and tremble as I invoke my secret incantation of mind reading:

Hey LD, what are your intentions, what's on your mind concerning all this for reals?

 

[Metaphor]

When your sole excuse for being a rude cunt to strangers is that "it's not (or shouldn't be) illegal to be a rude cunt to strangers", it's probably time for you to re-evaluate your behaviour, and maybe your entire moral code.

I don't need an 'excuse' to refuse to utter the prayers of somebody else's religion.

And yet you thought my post, which named nobody and quoted nobody, required a response from you.

Perhaps you should think more about that.

No. Your post did not require a response. However, since I am not an idiot, I recognise it was targeted at me.

I don't need to 'think more' about it. I well recognise that other people regard me as "rude" for not obeying the strictures of their religion.

 

[Metaphor]

If you admit you cannot read minds, why do you continue to pretend that you do?

I don't pretend to.

I am sorry that you can't recognise simple activities like 'drawing conclusions from evidence', and mistake them for mind-reading, and that you believe the people drawing the conclusions are pretending to mind-read.

 

[laughing dog]

If you admit you cannot read minds, why do you continue to pretend that you do?

I don't pretend to.

I am sorry that you can't recognise simple activities like 'drawing conclusions from evidence', and mistake them for mind-reading, and that you believe the people drawing the conclusions are pretending to mind-read.

As usual, your conclusion is the result of poor reasoning and a lack of precision in or knowledge of the English language.

I respond to your actual words. I am sorry you don't understand that when you write "but you posted that to make the implication that you did" that imposition of intent appears as a statement of fact. If one meant to clear and precise (something you appear to demand of others), one would preface that "conclusions" with something like "I suspect" or "I conclude that".

Or better yet, stop imputing intent on the part of others. Because there is ample evidence your imputations are terrible.

 

[Enigma]

It's nice to know that a good portion of the modern atheist community these days cares more about being nice than factual accuracy.

Asking for evidence to support the truth of deep-seated beliefs is just being rude.