This week in trans: extra prison time possible for misgendering

[Metaphor]

I think this gets to the root of why you and I aren't seeing eye-to-eye on this. In your mind, the typical example of someone getting extra prison time for misgendering is prisoner-prisoner interactions; in my mind it's prisoner-authority interactions. When the institution's objection to a prisoner's word choice escalates to the level of adding weeks or months to her incarceration, that's not something that can be done merely on an administrator's word. There will be an official record of the time that was added and for what infraction; so there will have to be an official record of the evidence against her. Somebody will have to be prepared to testify that she misgendered another prisoner.

We already covered this under "consider yourself awarded a point." It's insane to claim intentionally misgendering someone with pronouns is harassment per se, independent of other aspects of the behavior and/or its context that make it harassing, which is what I took those defending Lord Wolfson to be arguing for; and I think that's also what DrZ had in mind when he made the original assertion that it's insane. We aren't claiming it's "unpossible" to use an unpreferred pronoun as an element of harassment.

Moreover, you seem to be thinking of deadpronouning as a form of outing, as though you letting a "she" slip out is the reason the other prisoners know Jefferson used to be Justine, or is hurt by being called "she". It strikes me as unrealistic for you to project that scenario into a women's prison. I think as a rule the other prisoners already know which of their number were born male.

What makes you think I don't?

Unlike some folks here, I believe that self-identity is more important than an identity imposed upon a person by others. I also believe the system of identity-based advantages/disadvantages that society has created are ultimately harmful to society at large, and therefore should be limited in scope, narrowly targeted to address specific injustices, and never allowed to become permanent features.

i don't care if Rachel Dolezal identifies as black or Asian or Muslim or male. I care about unfair advantages/disadvantages they might encounter, exploit, or experience.

Others who identify as black might think Dolezal doesn't meet the criteria they believe must be met for someone to claim that identity. They can fight it out among themselves. Dolezal knows him/her/themself a helluva lot better than I do, so I defer to his/her/their judgement.

Well, I don't believe Rachel Dolezal is black, any more than I can believe that natal males can become women.

The reason I did not think you respected Dolezal's identity is because nearly everybody I've asked on this board who believes in the 'self identity' of natal males to call themselves women do NOT believe Rachel Dolezal's identity as a black woman should be respected. If so, they'd have answered my multiple questions on the subject.

And given that we are told that race is not real, it seems to me Dolezal has a better claim to blackness than males have to femaleness.

You keep conflating "female" (a biological identity) with "woman" (which can be a biological or a gender identity). Given your usual scrupulous attention to definitions, your sloppiness here is ironic.

It is not sloppiness and not ironic....

You are responsible for the contents and wording of your posts, no matter how much you wish to shift the responsibility of your wording and your content onto others. Really, blaming "trans ideologists" for your content is pathetic. So, either you are being sloppy or disingenuous.

Of course I am responsible and I am not being sloppy. 'Female', according to trans ideologists, is a gender identity. If you have a problem with that, take it up with your fellow trans ideologists.

 

[Metaphor]

I think this gets to the root of why you and I aren't seeing eye-to-eye on this. In your mind, the typical example of someone getting extra prison time for misgendering is prisoner-prisoner interactions; in my mind it's prisoner-authority interactions. When the institution's objection to a prisoner's word choice escalates to the level of adding weeks or months to her incarceration, that's not something that can be done merely on an administrator's word. There will be an official record of the time that was added and for what infraction; so there will have to be an official record of the evidence against her. Somebody will have to be prepared to testify that she misgendered another prisoner.

We already covered this under "consider yourself awarded a point." It's insane to claim intentionally misgendering someone with pronouns is harassment per se, independent of other aspects of the behavior and/or its context that make it harassing, which is what I took those defending Lord Wolfson to be arguing for; and I think that's also what DrZ had in mind when he made the original assertion that it's insane. We aren't claiming it's "unpossible" to use an unpreferred pronoun as an element of harassment.

Moreover, you seem to be thinking of deadpronouning as a form of outing, as though you letting a "she" slip out is the reason the other prisoners know Jefferson used to be Justine, or is hurt by being called "she". It strikes me as unrealistic for you to project that scenario into a women's prison. I think as a rule the other prisoners already know which of their number were born male.

What makes you think I don't?

Unlike some folks here, I believe that self-identity is more important than an identity imposed upon a person by others. I also believe the system of identity-based advantages/disadvantages that society has created are ultimately harmful to society at large, and therefore should be limited in scope, narrowly targeted to address specific injustices, and never allowed to become permanent features.

i don't care if Rachel Dolezal identifies as black or Asian or Muslim or male. I care about unfair advantages/disadvantages they might encounter, exploit, or experience.

Others who identify as black might think Dolezal doesn't meet the criteria they believe must be met for someone to claim that identity. They can fight it out among themselves. Dolezal knows him/her/themself a helluva lot better than I do, so I defer to his/her/their judgement.

Well, I don't believe Rachel Dolezal is black, any more than I can believe that natal males can become women.

The reason I did not think you respected Dolezal's identity is because nearly everybody I've asked on this board who believes in the 'self identity' of natal males to call themselves women do NOT believe Rachel Dolezal's identity as a black woman should be respected. If so, they'd have answered my multiple questions on the subject.

And given that we are told that race is not real, it seems to me Dolezal has a better claim to blackness than males have to femaleness.

You keep conflating "female" (a biological identity) with "woman" (which can be a biological or a gender identity). Given your usual scrupulous attention to definitions, your sloppiness here is ironic.

It is not sloppiness and not ironic. It is trans ideologists who have not only decided 'woman' is up for grabs, but have called Rachel Levine 'female'. Toni has described transwomen as female. So, while the destruction of the word 'woman' is near-complete, the destruction of the word 'female' has just begun, and it began with trans ideologists and is continued by their cheerleaders.

Trans ideologists - at least, the ones who still believe there is such a thing as biological sex -- nevertheless think that gender identity should supplant biological sex in nearly every social (and indeed, sexual) interaction where previously sex played an important role.

But I have not met a trans ideologist or one of their cheerleaders (except Arctish) who has said Rachel Dolezal's racial identity as black should supplant her actual race (of white), or indeed is even worthy of any respect whatsoever. Strike respect--people fucking hate her for it.

fuck dude. YOU are defining what is or is not TRANS. of course dude is liberal..

I don't know what is going on in your head when you post, but your posts are mostly incomprehensible nonsense.

 

[laughing dog]

I think this gets to the root of why you and I aren't seeing eye-to-eye on this. In your mind, the typical example of someone getting extra prison time for misgendering is prisoner-prisoner interactions; in my mind it's prisoner-authority interactions. When the institution's objection to a prisoner's word choice escalates to the level of adding weeks or months to her incarceration, that's not something that can be done merely on an administrator's word. There will be an official record of the time that was added and for what infraction; so there will have to be an official record of the evidence against her. Somebody will have to be prepared to testify that she misgendered another prisoner.

We already covered this under "consider yourself awarded a point." It's insane to claim intentionally misgendering someone with pronouns is harassment per se, independent of other aspects of the behavior and/or its context that make it harassing, which is what I took those defending Lord Wolfson to be arguing for; and I think that's also what DrZ had in mind when he made the original assertion that it's insane. We aren't claiming it's "unpossible" to use an unpreferred pronoun as an element of harassment.

Moreover, you seem to be thinking of deadpronouning as a form of outing, as though you letting a "she" slip out is the reason the other prisoners know Jefferson used to be Justine, or is hurt by being called "she". It strikes me as unrealistic for you to project that scenario into a women's prison. I think as a rule the other prisoners already know which of their number were born male.

What makes you think I don't?

Unlike some folks here, I believe that self-identity is more important than an identity imposed upon a person by others. I also believe the system of identity-based advantages/disadvantages that society has created are ultimately harmful to society at large, and therefore should be limited in scope, narrowly targeted to address specific injustices, and never allowed to become permanent features.

i don't care if Rachel Dolezal identifies as black or Asian or Muslim or male. I care about unfair advantages/disadvantages they might encounter, exploit, or experience.

Others who identify as black might think Dolezal doesn't meet the criteria they believe must be met for someone to claim that identity. They can fight it out among themselves. Dolezal knows him/her/themself a helluva lot better than I do, so I defer to his/her/their judgement.

Well, I don't believe Rachel Dolezal is black, any more than I can believe that natal males can become women.

The reason I did not think you respected Dolezal's identity is because nearly everybody I've asked on this board who believes in the 'self identity' of natal males to call themselves women do NOT believe Rachel Dolezal's identity as a black woman should be respected. If so, they'd have answered my multiple questions on the subject.

And given that we are told that race is not real, it seems to me Dolezal has a better claim to blackness than males have to femaleness.

You keep conflating "female" (a biological identity) with "woman" (which can be a biological or a gender identity). Given your usual scrupulous attention to definitions, your sloppiness here is ironic.

It is not sloppiness and not ironic....

You are responsible for the contents and wording of your posts, no matter how much you wish to shift the responsibility of your wording and your content onto others. Really, blaming "trans ideologists" for your content is pathetic. So, either you are being sloppy or disingenuous.

Of course I am responsible and I am not being sloppy. 'Female', according to trans ideologists, is a gender identity. If you have a problem with that, take it up with your fellow trans ideologists.

While I can understand how a small-minded hysterical bigot would incorrectly conclude I am a trans ideologist, I cannot understand how you could make such a bonehead claim.

It is not believable that someone who has such trouble and disagreements over the misuse of the term "female" and "woman" would adopt that misuse.

 

[Metaphor]

I think this gets to the root of why you and I aren't seeing eye-to-eye on this. In your mind, the typical example of someone getting extra prison time for misgendering is prisoner-prisoner interactions; in my mind it's prisoner-authority interactions. When the institution's objection to a prisoner's word choice escalates to the level of adding weeks or months to her incarceration, that's not something that can be done merely on an administrator's word. There will be an official record of the time that was added and for what infraction; so there will have to be an official record of the evidence against her. Somebody will have to be prepared to testify that she misgendered another prisoner.

We already covered this under "consider yourself awarded a point." It's insane to claim intentionally misgendering someone with pronouns is harassment per se, independent of other aspects of the behavior and/or its context that make it harassing, which is what I took those defending Lord Wolfson to be arguing for; and I think that's also what DrZ had in mind when he made the original assertion that it's insane. We aren't claiming it's "unpossible" to use an unpreferred pronoun as an element of harassment.

Moreover, you seem to be thinking of deadpronouning as a form of outing, as though you letting a "she" slip out is the reason the other prisoners know Jefferson used to be Justine, or is hurt by being called "she". It strikes me as unrealistic for you to project that scenario into a women's prison. I think as a rule the other prisoners already know which of their number were born male.

What makes you think I don't?

Unlike some folks here, I believe that self-identity is more important than an identity imposed upon a person by others. I also believe the system of identity-based advantages/disadvantages that society has created are ultimately harmful to society at large, and therefore should be limited in scope, narrowly targeted to address specific injustices, and never allowed to become permanent features.

i don't care if Rachel Dolezal identifies as black or Asian or Muslim or male. I care about unfair advantages/disadvantages they might encounter, exploit, or experience.

Others who identify as black might think Dolezal doesn't meet the criteria they believe must be met for someone to claim that identity. They can fight it out among themselves. Dolezal knows him/her/themself a helluva lot better than I do, so I defer to his/her/their judgement.

Well, I don't believe Rachel Dolezal is black, any more than I can believe that natal males can become women.

The reason I did not think you respected Dolezal's identity is because nearly everybody I've asked on this board who believes in the 'self identity' of natal males to call themselves women do NOT believe Rachel Dolezal's identity as a black woman should be respected. If so, they'd have answered my multiple questions on the subject.

And given that we are told that race is not real, it seems to me Dolezal has a better claim to blackness than males have to femaleness.

You keep conflating "female" (a biological identity) with "woman" (which can be a biological or a gender identity). Given your usual scrupulous attention to definitions, your sloppiness here is ironic.

It is not sloppiness and not ironic....

You are responsible for the contents and wording of your posts, no matter how much you wish to shift the responsibility of your wording and your content onto others. Really, blaming "trans ideologists" for your content is pathetic. So, either you are being sloppy or disingenuous.

Of course I am responsible and I am not being sloppy. 'Female', according to trans ideologists, is a gender identity. If you have a problem with that, take it up with your fellow trans ideologists.

While I can understand how a small-minded hysterical bigot would incorrectly conclude I am a trans ideologist, I cannot understand how you could make such a bonehead claim.

It is not believable that someone who has such trouble and disagreements over the misuse of the term "female" and "woman" would adopt that misuse.

What you believe is your own affair, as incoherent as it is. When I say 'there are males who identify as female', I mean what I say. The fact that identifying as female is a ludicrous and delusional thing to do, if you are male, is not a problem that I created. It's a problem that trans ideologists created.

 

[Arctish]

Don't misunderstand me.

Race and racial identity is about more than DNA, just like sex and gender is about more than chromosomes. There's a shit-ton of cultural baggage that comes with a race label including significant advantages and disadvantages.

Dolezal self identifies as black. So what? I don't really care. As long as Dolezal isn't doing it for what I think are morally wrong reasons (perpetrating a scam or something) I have no reason to object to it. Or to question it for that matter. They know themselves better than I do. Why should I, in my ignorance, get to tell them who and what they are?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Don't misunderstand me.

Race and racial identity is about more than DNA, just like sex and gender is about more than chromosomes. There's a shit-ton of cultural baggage that comes with a race label including significant advantages and disadvantages.

Dolezal self identifies as black. So what? I don't really care. As long as Dolezal isn't doing it for what I think are morally wrong reasons (perpetrating a scam or something) I have no reason to object to it. Or to question it for that matter. They know themselves better than I do. Why should I, in my ignorance, get to tell them who and what they are?

I don't think that's the point either. We're allowed to identify anyone as anything, and express it. It's ok that other people get offended. The idea that we're to police what other people call each other is absurd.

When it reaches a point where we call it harassment then it's got to be pretty extreme. Misgendering someone trans is NOT extreme.

Whether or not someone who feels transgendered is a man or a woman isn't obvious, nor is it an open and shut case. In a situation like that it's best to back off and let people sort it out on their own. It doesn't matter how much it may hurt inside the transgendered person. Perceived pain is a legal non-factor.

 

[Emily Lake]

Identity is complicated.

I was actually referencing sex with respect to the "it's complicated" comment. There's a current trend of fallacious reasoning that conflates sex-based characteristics with actual sex, and then proceeds to argue that because no single element of those characteristics is unambiguously 100% of the time perfectly textbook for sex, then sex itself is super duper complicated and therefore essentially unknowable and opaque. Which it's not. The accuracy rate for identification of sex on the basis of facial features alone is over 95%. It doesn't require genital inspection or chromosomal investigation to tell who is a male and who is a female with an incredibly, incredibly high degree of accuracy. Sex-based characteristics are extremely, extremely highly clustered and dimorphic.

Outside of very rare deleterious medical conditions (which have nothing to do with gender identity) there is zero overlap in secondary sex characteristics, and low overlap in tertiary sex characteristics. And considering that tertiary characteristics are not directly sex-linked, but represent divergence in shared features between males and females, that's pretty strong differentiation.

It's also malleable, adaptive, accumulative, and intangible. It changes with circumstances, maturation, and developing self awareness. It goes way beyond chromosomes and social conventions.

How much or how little you care about someone else's identity is up to you. How society should treat people based on their identity is up to society, i.e. all of us deciding what it means and what to do.

Have you noticed how extremely selective the concept of respecting and caring about someone's identity is? There's a very strong push to obligate people to honor and respect someone's transgender identity... but it comes at the cost of honoring and respecting the identity of women and same-sex attracted people.

There are a LOT of identities out there that seem to be fair play for abuse, harassment, and dehumanization. Republicans, conservatives, even moderates seem to be open to mistreatment, mocking, and denigration on the basis of those identities. It has become commonplace to exhibit outright disrespect for those identities.

As I've said before, I don't have any problems at all with treating transgender people with respect and dignity, and I think everyone should be treated as such. I treat all people with the same default level of respect and dignity that I consider to be due to all humans. Any variance from that baseline is due to the individual personality and behavioral characteristics of the individual.

As counter questions... How much should a person's self-declared identity be the basis of legal treatment and public policy? In what situations should a person be allowed to subjectively identify into protections, privileges, and services that are currently provided on the basis of objective factors? What should be the course of action when one person's internal, personal belief about their identity creates a conflict with the rights, dignity, privacy, and safety of existing objective categories of people?

 

[J842P]

Race and racial identity is about more than DNA, just like sex and gender is about more than chromosomes. There's a shit-ton of cultural baggage that comes with a race label including significant advantages and disadvantages.

Dolezal self identifies as black. So what? I don't really care. As long as Dolezal isn't doing it for what I think are morally wrong reasons (perpetrating a scam or something) I have no reason to object to it. Or to question it for that matter. They know themselves better than I do. Why should I, in my ignorance, get to tell them who and what they are?

Because many identity categories are not categories which you get to choose. Even the ones where you do, it is still negotiated with society. The idea that we just choose our identities, like articles of clothing, is just silly.

 

[laughing dog]

I think this gets to the root of why you and I aren't seeing eye-to-eye on this. In your mind, the typical example of someone getting extra prison time for misgendering is prisoner-prisoner interactions; in my mind it's prisoner-authority interactions. When the institution's objection to a prisoner's word choice escalates to the level of adding weeks or months to her incarceration, that's not something that can be done merely on an administrator's word. There will be an official record of the time that was added and for what infraction; so there will have to be an official record of the evidence against her. Somebody will have to be prepared to testify that she misgendered another prisoner.

We already covered this under "consider yourself awarded a point." It's insane to claim intentionally misgendering someone with pronouns is harassment per se, independent of other aspects of the behavior and/or its context that make it harassing, which is what I took those defending Lord Wolfson to be arguing for; and I think that's also what DrZ had in mind when he made the original assertion that it's insane. We aren't claiming it's "unpossible" to use an unpreferred pronoun as an element of harassment.

Moreover, you seem to be thinking of deadpronouning as a form of outing, as though you letting a "she" slip out is the reason the other prisoners know Jefferson used to be Justine, or is hurt by being called "she". It strikes me as unrealistic for you to project that scenario into a women's prison. I think as a rule the other prisoners already know which of their number were born male.

What makes you think I don't?

Unlike some folks here, I believe that self-identity is more important than an identity imposed upon a person by others. I also believe the system of identity-based advantages/disadvantages that society has created are ultimately harmful to society at large, and therefore should be limited in scope, narrowly targeted to address specific injustices, and never allowed to become permanent features.

i don't care if Rachel Dolezal identifies as black or Asian or Muslim or male. I care about unfair advantages/disadvantages they might encounter, exploit, or experience.

Others who identify as black might think Dolezal doesn't meet the criteria they believe must be met for someone to claim that identity. They can fight it out among themselves. Dolezal knows him/her/themself a helluva lot better than I do, so I defer to his/her/their judgement.

Well, I don't believe Rachel Dolezal is black, any more than I can believe that natal males can become women.

The reason I did not think you respected Dolezal's identity is because nearly everybody I've asked on this board who believes in the 'self identity' of natal males to call themselves women do NOT believe Rachel Dolezal's identity as a black woman should be respected. If so, they'd have answered my multiple questions on the subject.

And given that we are told that race is not real, it seems to me Dolezal has a better claim to blackness than males have to femaleness.

You keep conflating "female" (a biological identity) with "woman" (which can be a biological or a gender identity). Given your usual scrupulous attention to definitions, your sloppiness here is ironic.

It is not sloppiness and not ironic....

You are responsible for the contents and wording of your posts, no matter how much you wish to shift the responsibility of your wording and your content onto others. Really, blaming "trans ideologists" for your content is pathetic. So, either you are being sloppy or disingenuous.

Of course I am responsible and I am not being sloppy. 'Female', according to trans ideologists, is a gender identity. If you have a problem with that, take it up with your fellow trans ideologists.

While I can understand how a small-minded hysterical bigot would incorrectly conclude I am a trans ideologist, I cannot understand how you could make such a bonehead claim.

It is not believable that someone who has such trouble and disagreements over the misuse of the term "female" and "woman" would adopt that misuse.

What you believe is your own affair, as incoherent as it is. When I say 'there are males who identify as female', I mean what I say. The fact that identifying as female is a ludicrous and delusional thing to do, if you are male, is not a problem that I created. It's a problem that trans ideologists created.

The irony of your use of ludicrous and delusional in this thread is overwhelming.

 

[Metaphor]

I think this gets to the root of why you and I aren't seeing eye-to-eye on this. In your mind, the typical example of someone getting extra prison time for misgendering is prisoner-prisoner interactions; in my mind it's prisoner-authority interactions. When the institution's objection to a prisoner's word choice escalates to the level of adding weeks or months to her incarceration, that's not something that can be done merely on an administrator's word. There will be an official record of the time that was added and for what infraction; so there will have to be an official record of the evidence against her. Somebody will have to be prepared to testify that she misgendered another prisoner.

We already covered this under "consider yourself awarded a point." It's insane to claim intentionally misgendering someone with pronouns is harassment per se, independent of other aspects of the behavior and/or its context that make it harassing, which is what I took those defending Lord Wolfson to be arguing for; and I think that's also what DrZ had in mind when he made the original assertion that it's insane. We aren't claiming it's "unpossible" to use an unpreferred pronoun as an element of harassment.

Moreover, you seem to be thinking of deadpronouning as a form of outing, as though you letting a "she" slip out is the reason the other prisoners know Jefferson used to be Justine, or is hurt by being called "she". It strikes me as unrealistic for you to project that scenario into a women's prison. I think as a rule the other prisoners already know which of their number were born male.

What makes you think I don't?

Unlike some folks here, I believe that self-identity is more important than an identity imposed upon a person by others. I also believe the system of identity-based advantages/disadvantages that society has created are ultimately harmful to society at large, and therefore should be limited in scope, narrowly targeted to address specific injustices, and never allowed to become permanent features.

i don't care if Rachel Dolezal identifies as black or Asian or Muslim or male. I care about unfair advantages/disadvantages they might encounter, exploit, or experience.

Others who identify as black might think Dolezal doesn't meet the criteria they believe must be met for someone to claim that identity. They can fight it out among themselves. Dolezal knows him/her/themself a helluva lot better than I do, so I defer to his/her/their judgement.

Well, I don't believe Rachel Dolezal is black, any more than I can believe that natal males can become women.

The reason I did not think you respected Dolezal's identity is because nearly everybody I've asked on this board who believes in the 'self identity' of natal males to call themselves women do NOT believe Rachel Dolezal's identity as a black woman should be respected. If so, they'd have answered my multiple questions on the subject.

And given that we are told that race is not real, it seems to me Dolezal has a better claim to blackness than males have to femaleness.

You keep conflating "female" (a biological identity) with "woman" (which can be a biological or a gender identity). Given your usual scrupulous attention to definitions, your sloppiness here is ironic.

It is not sloppiness and not ironic....

You are responsible for the contents and wording of your posts, no matter how much you wish to shift the responsibility of your wording and your content onto others. Really, blaming "trans ideologists" for your content is pathetic. So, either you are being sloppy or disingenuous.

Of course I am responsible and I am not being sloppy. 'Female', according to trans ideologists, is a gender identity. If you have a problem with that, take it up with your fellow trans ideologists.

While I can understand how a small-minded hysterical bigot would incorrectly conclude I am a trans ideologist, I cannot understand how you could make such a bonehead claim.

It is not believable that someone who has such trouble and disagreements over the misuse of the term "female" and "woman" would adopt that misuse.

What you believe is your own affair, as incoherent as it is. When I say 'there are males who identify as female', I mean what I say. The fact that identifying as female is a ludicrous and delusional thing to do, if you are male, is not a problem that I created. It's a problem that trans ideologists created.

The irony of your use of ludicrous and delusional in this thread is overwhelming.

I think I have some smelling salts and a fainting couch for you.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It is not sloppiness and not ironic. It is trans ideologists who have not only decided 'woman' is up for grabs, but have called Rachel Levine 'female'. Toni has described transwomen as female. So, while the destruction of the word 'woman' is near-complete, the destruction of the word 'female' has just begun, and it began with trans ideologists and is continued by their cheerleaders.

Trans ideologists - at least, the ones who still believe there is such a thing as biological sex -- nevertheless think that gender identity should supplant biological sex in nearly every social (and indeed, sexual) interaction where previously sex played an important role.

But I have not met a trans ideologist or one of their cheerleaders (except Arctish) who has said Rachel Dolezal's racial identity as black should supplant her actual race (of white), or indeed is even worthy of any respect whatsoever. Strike respect--people fucking hate her for it.

An analogy I saw elsewhere that I think sums it up well:

Biological sex is the hardware. Gender is the software. They don't always match.

Both systems are supposed to move in sync--male body, male mind. However, evolution does an awfully shitty job on the edge cases, things sometimes get put together wrong.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Don't misunderstand me.

Race and racial identity is about more than DNA, just like sex and gender is about more than chromosomes. There's a shit-ton of cultural baggage that comes with a race label including significant advantages and disadvantages.

Dolezal self identifies as black. So what? I don't really care. As long as Dolezal isn't doing it for what I think are morally wrong reasons (perpetrating a scam or something) I have no reason to object to it. Or to question it for that matter. They know themselves better than I do. Why should I, in my ignorance, get to tell them who and what they are?

Yeah--it doesn't matter what you choose to label yourself unless you are attempting to obtain some sort of benefit that only members of that group attain.

This is obviously quite relevant in areas where there is professional licensing involved. It's wrong to identify as a doctor when you aren't one.

In a fair society identifying as being of a certain race or gender or such should not grant benefits, thus it shouldn't matter what you choose to identify as.

 

[Metaphor]

It is not sloppiness and not ironic. It is trans ideologists who have not only decided 'woman' is up for grabs, but have called Rachel Levine 'female'. Toni has described transwomen as female. So, while the destruction of the word 'woman' is near-complete, the destruction of the word 'female' has just begun, and it began with trans ideologists and is continued by their cheerleaders.

Trans ideologists - at least, the ones who still believe there is such a thing as biological sex -- nevertheless think that gender identity should supplant biological sex in nearly every social (and indeed, sexual) interaction where previously sex played an important role.

But I have not met a trans ideologist or one of their cheerleaders (except Arctish) who has said Rachel Dolezal's racial identity as black should supplant her actual race (of white), or indeed is even worthy of any respect whatsoever. Strike respect--people fucking hate her for it.

An analogy I saw elsewhere that I think sums it up well:

Biological sex is the hardware. Gender is the software. They don't always match.

Both systems are supposed to move in sync--male body, male mind. However, evolution does an awfully shitty job on the edge cases, things sometimes get put together wrong.

And...what?

What, precisely, am I supposed to take away from this analogy? Do you believe people are attracted to male or female 'minds' instead of male or female bodies?

Do you believe that Laurel Hubbard's or Rachel McKinnon's or Hannah Mouncey's 'female' minds mean their male bodies belong in women's sports?

 

[Jarhyn]

You did not answer my question. I did not ask "should prison sentences be extended for anything other than serious violent behaviour"? I asked:

Do you think it is okay for the State to punish people for 'misgendering'?

If you want to answer that question, please do so. If you do not, at least have the courtesy of not pretending you have.

I answered the question quite clearly but I cannot understand it for you, particularly when you choose to not understand.

Toni, you did not. I realise you have a high degree of confidence that you have, but you did not answer the question. As best as I can tell, you answered the question: "Should the State extend prison sentences for prisoners who misgender?", to which your answer appears to be "no".

But I did not ask that question. I asked "Should the State punish people who misgender?" You have not answered that question.

We all realize

Who is 'we', got a mouse in your purse?

Should we extend prison sentences for prisoners who extend their arms? What if that arm had a knife in it?

You are committing a bald faced false straw-man/begged question, a framer's fallacy.

We argue that the dimension of determination be "is harassing": "Extended prison time for harassing". Any particular action when done in particular contexts can be harassing.

When misgendering is done to harass, this should extend prison time. It is just unfortunate for those prone to misgender others because generally it will be harassing. I can think of no instances right now where it would not.

It is acceptable, absolutely, that the state be alllowed to exert leverage against any person for *any* action that falls under the banner of "harassment", assuming that leverage is proportional to and commensurate with the actions that led to it.

That means that the state could, in some imagined instance, put someone in remediation for saying "I think you are a great person with a terrific family", assuming the situation is one where the person whispered it in their ear at a school function while shaking their hand.

The state should absolutely enforce it's laws where appropriate, and when they are broken. When that involves an act of misgendering, then the state gets to enforce laws against someone "for harassing".

There are a lot of ways I could refer to you, which people use all the time. You have thrown at least two tantrums when I have done so in the past; noting this, your argument seems to be built on some unstable ground...

 

[Metaphor]

You did not answer my question. I did not ask "should prison sentences be extended for anything other than serious violent behaviour"? I asked:

Do you think it is okay for the State to punish people for 'misgendering'?

If you want to answer that question, please do so. If you do not, at least have the courtesy of not pretending you have.

I answered the question quite clearly but I cannot understand it for you, particularly when you choose to not understand.

Toni, you did not. I realise you have a high degree of confidence that you have, but you did not answer the question. As best as I can tell, you answered the question: "Should the State extend prison sentences for prisoners who misgender?", to which your answer appears to be "no".

But I did not ask that question. I asked "Should the State punish people who misgender?" You have not answered that question.

We all realize

Who is 'we', got a mouse in your purse?

Should we extend prison sentences for prisoners who extend their arms? What if that arm had a knife in it?

You are committing a bald faced false straw-man/begged question, a framer's fallacy.

We argue that the dimension of determination be "is harassing": "Extended prison time for harassing". Any particular action when done in particular contexts can be harassing.

When misgendering is done to harass, this should extend prison time. It is just unfortunate for those prone to misgender others because generally it will be harassing. I can think of no instances right now where it would not.

It is acceptable, absolutely, that the state be alllowed to exert leverage against any person for *any* action that falls under the banner of "harassment", assuming that leverage is proportional to and commensurate with the actions that led to it.

That means that the state could, in some imagined instance, put someone in remediation for saying "I think you are a great person with a terrific family", assuming the situation is one where the person whispered it in their ear at a school function while shaking their hand.

The state should absolutely enforce it's laws where appropriate, and when they are broken. When that involves an act of misgendering, then the state gets to enforce laws against someone "for harassing".

There are a lot of ways I could refer to you, which people use all the time. You have thrown at least two tantrums when I have done so in the past; noting this, your argument seems to be built on some unstable ground...

I am willing to enact the labour of answering this if Jarhyn has taken me off ignore and will read what I say.

 

[Jarhyn]

[grammarian]
English does not have distinct second-person pronouns for different sexes. English has distinct third-person pronouns for different sexes.
[/grammarian]

It says right in the article that they have an equal rights law since 2010 - they aren't allowed to harass people for religion, race, gender

The anti trans people just cherry pick this garbage out of broader laws.

They want a carve out so they can harass trans people.

Harassing someone implies interacting with him or her, which generally involves saying "you", not "he" or "she". If you call people "he" or "she" to their faces they'll just be confused and imagine you're abusing somebody else, not them, which will kind of defeat the purpose of harassing them.

People use "he" and "she" pronouns when they're talking about a third party. You mentioned religion. Well then, is it your contention that the 2010 equal rights law prohibits one Christian prisoner telling another Christian prisoner that Islam is a false religion? Is it your contention that that's "harassing a Muslim"?

DrZoidberg is correct. Claiming it's harassment to misgender someone with pronouns is insane.

Calling someone by something they have indicated they don't wish to be called can be insulting. Persisting in doing so is harassment. Duh.

Someone will need thicker skin than that to survive in prison. Prison is full of people who have done really bad things. Really bad. Much worse than harassment.

What people will need in prison is irrelevant.People in prison tend to have less control and tend to be less civilized. The prison rule is not about protecting someone - it is about maintaining order and reducing possible violent problems.

I think prisoners main focus is not getting shived by another inmate. I think every other priority is secondary. Prisons internally are run by maffia organizations. If a prison wants to keep prisoners safe they need to play by those rules. The idea that the guards can dictate behaviour, or even teach them anything is ludicrous. Prisoners of course prefer having time added to their sentence rather than getting murdered or seriously injured.

"If the places for reducing and resolving criminal intent are to be kept safe, we have to let them operate in a framework of criminal networks and enterprises."

No. Every individual with any power in these structures needs to be removed and placed in isolation from their networks, with continued attempts to organize criminal activity yielding an increasing level of corrective sophistication.

Good luck with that. You make it sound like we haven't been trying to do this, since for ever. In the Soviet Union they were about as heavy handed as it's possible to be with inmates and ended up with a maffia identifiable by having huge crucifixes tattooed on their chests. The inmates feared the guy with the crucifix more than the guards. It doesn't work. In a western country where inmates have basic human rights, it's not going to happen. The one thing totalitarian regimes have going for it is that they're the only type of regime that can effectively curtail the activity of the maffia. But they still can't prevent them from running our prisons. What chance do we have?

We simply have to accept that our tools of coercion are limited when we're dealing with people with nothing left to lose.

Isn't it better to allow the inmates sort themselves out and do their best to come out of there in one piece? Perhaps they know better than us what it means to survive in prison? Well meaning tough love morons are only going to make an already difficult life worse, for no reason or benefit. They're already in prison. Why try to fuck their lives up even more?

Because we haven't.

Maybe you never paid attention to the whole thread where I put AM on ignore: it was because they consistently argued for the "virtues" of the punishment model.

US prisons are "punishment model".

The issue is "coercion" in the first place.

Look at what you are arguing: coerce those whose entire issue is that they do not use nor acknowledge value of tools other than coercion!

Correction in the first place starts with introducing the value of compassion not as weakness but strength.

I'm arguing for that inmates have bigger problems than which pronouns we use. Worrying about pronouns is a luxury matter for the middle-class. Trying to apply this to inmates, ie working class people is tone deaf to the extreme.

It's like trying to talk a single mother of four to switch to eco friendly locally sourced whole grain food, when she's struggling to feed her kids at all.

Being in prison, isn't that punishment enough? Why make it worse by adding a bunch of bizarre rules.

And finally, the current trend about people picking pronouns and expecting it to be respected. I think it's a fad. It's a really dumb fad. It's not about showing support for the trans community. It's just dumb. It's pointless virtue signaling for the benefit of nobody. Kids do it in the hope that it might annoy their parents. Adults do it because they want to show they're hip to the jib of the younguns'. It's just dumb and it's going to go away. Why use extreme punishments, like extending prison sentences for what's essentially a middle-class fad?

It reminds me of a story of a young middle-class guy at a constructing site who was called princess by one guy. Finally he snapped and told him to stop calling him that. After that... obviously... everybody called him princess. And that became his nickname. These are pretty harsh environments where you need thick skin to survive. Being prissy and polite isn't going to fly. Every community has it's social rules that need to be obeyed if one wants respect. In prisons, the prison officials and guards are the least important people for inmates to get respect from. Because they're not going to be around after the inmates gets out of prison.

It's a hard life being an ex-con. They need to network and make friends inside.

Seriously, I wonder what could possibly be a good reason for making prison an environment where people are expected to and encouraged for respecting the boundaries and experiences of others.

Or as I keep pointing out, organizing prison in such a way where those who abuse do not have access to victims.

Did you forget the whole thread that ended in AM getting on ignore?

Do you want to have the same argument again where I point out that the lot of you keep making arguments for to be awful to people so as to rule them with fear of an inconsistent punishment (and so one far less effective), of what is essentially living in a bin of rape and abuse?

No. I'm going to reject your lust for Hell on Earth, and ask only what can we do to help prevent evil tomorrow and today, and not seek nor allow revenge.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Seriously, I wonder what could possibly be a good reason for making prison an environment where people are expected to and encouraged for respecting the boundaries and experiences of others.

Or as I keep pointing out, organizing prison in such a way where those who abuse do not have access to victims.

Did you forget the whole thread that ended in AM getting on ignore?

Do you want to have the same argument again where I point out that the lot of you keep making arguments for to be awful to people so as to rule them with fear of an inconsistent punishment (and so one far less effective), of what is essentially living in a bin of rape and abuse?

No. I'm going to reject your lust for Hell on Earth, and ask only what can we do to help prevent evil tomorrow and today, and not seek nor allow revenge.

Your way of thinking about this reminds me of Swedes talking about rape statistics. We see that Middle-Easterners are grossly over-represented in Swedish rape statistics. So we start education programmes to teach Middle-Eastern immigrants that it's wrong to rape and in the Swedish culture we won't accept that. As if they didn't know that already. As if it's part of the Muslim culture to rape. Completely ignoring that, in the Middle-East, men manage just fine not raping women left and right. Clearly.. that's not the problem. It's something else.

Your view of prison populations is a complete fantasy. We're not going to teach anyone anything in prison. It so far hasn't happen yet in human history. It's not going to happen in the future. Prison is a holding place for dangerous people. So they can't hurt the rest of society for a while. If they didn't learn to use the politically correct pronouns on the outside, they're not going to on the inside. If you force them, you can bet that they will go out of their way to violate this, as much as possible. Guards can't be everywhere all the time. Who will be the victims of this policy... members of the trans community behind bars. And all of them once the perp gets out.

A big part of solving problems in life is correctly identifying the important problems to solve, and accepting those problems that are either too expensive or too hard to make it worth solving.

 

[Jarhyn]

Seriously, I wonder what could possibly be a good reason for making prison an environment where people are expected to and encouraged for respecting the boundaries and experiences of others.

Or as I keep pointing out, organizing prison in such a way where those who abuse do not have access to victims.

Did you forget the whole thread that ended in AM getting on ignore?

Do you want to have the same argument again where I point out that the lot of you keep making arguments for to be awful to people so as to rule them with fear of an inconsistent punishment (and so one far less effective), of what is essentially living in a bin of rape and abuse?

No. I'm going to reject your lust for Hell on Earth, and ask only what can we do to help prevent evil tomorrow and today, and not seek nor allow revenge.

Your way of thinking about this reminds me of Swedes talking about rape statistics. We see that Middle-Easterners are grossly over-represented in Swedish rape statistics. So we start education programmes to teach Middle-Eastern immigrants that it's wrong to rape and in the Swedish culture we won't accept that. As if they didn't know that already. As if it's part of the Muslim culture to rape. Completely ignoring that, in the Middle-East, men manage just fine not raping women left and right. Clearly.. that's not the problem. It's something else.

Your view of prison populations is a complete fantasy. We're not going to teach anyone anything in prison. It so far hasn't happen yet in human history. It's not going to happen in the future. Prison is a holding place for dangerous people. So they can't hurt the rest of society for a while. If they didn't learn to use the politically correct pronouns on the outside, they're not going to on the inside. If you force them, you can bet that they will go out of their way to violate this, as much as possible. Guards can't be everywhere all the time. Who will be the victims of this policy... members of the trans community behind bars. And all of them once the perp gets out.

A big part of solving problems in life is correctly identifying the important problems to solve, and accepting those problems that are either too expensive or too hard to make it worth solving.

If that is the case, then you have made an excellent argument for executing anyone who commits any crime of consent.

I don't agree with your conclusion.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Seriously, I wonder what could possibly be a good reason for making prison an environment where people are expected to and encouraged for respecting the boundaries and experiences of others.

Or as I keep pointing out, organizing prison in such a way where those who abuse do not have access to victims.

Did you forget the whole thread that ended in AM getting on ignore?

Do you want to have the same argument again where I point out that the lot of you keep making arguments for to be awful to people so as to rule them with fear of an inconsistent punishment (and so one far less effective), of what is essentially living in a bin of rape and abuse?

No. I'm going to reject your lust for Hell on Earth, and ask only what can we do to help prevent evil tomorrow and today, and not seek nor allow revenge.

Your way of thinking about this reminds me of Swedes talking about rape statistics. We see that Middle-Easterners are grossly over-represented in Swedish rape statistics. So we start education programmes to teach Middle-Eastern immigrants that it's wrong to rape and in the Swedish culture we won't accept that. As if they didn't know that already. As if it's part of the Muslim culture to rape. Completely ignoring that, in the Middle-East, men manage just fine not raping women left and right. Clearly.. that's not the problem. It's something else.

Your view of prison populations is a complete fantasy. We're not going to teach anyone anything in prison. It so far hasn't happen yet in human history. It's not going to happen in the future. Prison is a holding place for dangerous people. So they can't hurt the rest of society for a while. If they didn't learn to use the politically correct pronouns on the outside, they're not going to on the inside. If you force them, you can bet that they will go out of their way to violate this, as much as possible. Guards can't be everywhere all the time. Who will be the victims of this policy... members of the trans community behind bars. And all of them once the perp gets out.

A big part of solving problems in life is correctly identifying the important problems to solve, and accepting those problems that are either too expensive or too hard to make it worth solving.

If that is the case, then you have made an excellent argument for executing anyone who commits any crime of consent.

I don't agree with your conclusion.

What?

 

[TomC]

It is not sloppiness and not ironic. It is trans ideologists who have not only decided 'woman' is up for grabs, but have called Rachel Levine 'female'. Toni has described transwomen as female. So, while the destruction of the word 'woman' is near-complete, the destruction of the word 'female' has just begun, and it began with trans ideologists and is continued by their cheerleaders.

Trans ideologists - at least, the ones who still believe there is such a thing as biological sex -- nevertheless think that gender identity should supplant biological sex in nearly every social (and indeed, sexual) interaction where previously sex played an important role.

But I have not met a trans ideologist or one of their cheerleaders (except Arctish) who has said Rachel Dolezal's racial identity as black should supplant her actual race (of white), or indeed is even worthy of any respect whatsoever. Strike respect--people fucking hate her for it.

An analogy I saw elsewhere that I think sums it up well:

Biological sex is the hardware. Gender is the software. They don't always match.

Both systems are supposed to move in sync--male body, male mind. However, evolution does an awfully shitty job on the edge cases, things sometimes get put together wrong.

This is a great summation.

For the last 1000+ generations sex and gender were so closely entwined there was no distinction made. From the gender norms to the culture to the language, everyone was either a gal or a guy.

The last couple of generations or so we've become more sophisticated and come to recognize that even genders isn't as simple as that. People's gender identity isn't always determined by their sex. But also, the vast majority of people have a gender that matches their sex. And people of different sexes vary a good deal in predictable ways. Males are much more threat to females than the other way around. It would be nice if everyone were civilized and learned to control and channel their ancient instincts, but a quick look at rape and assault statistics will show that we males haven't done so(as a group) all that well. We males are vastly more rapey and pervy and violent than females. The only reason I can think of for people to ignore that fact is ideological blinders.

Tom