Lila
El Dandy
Slip N Slide World Champion 1997
Posts: 8,905
|
Post by Lila on Aug 11, 2014 13:37:08 GMT -5
The bolded stuff has nothing to do with what I'm talking about at all, so IDK why you typed that out. Just simply call whomever what it is they want to be identify as for their gender or sex. It's that simple. What? Is it that hard for you or something? If that's not what you're talking about, then what you said isn't really pertinent to what I'm talking about. It doesn't matter to me what a person believes, it matters what is. A lot of people don't believe in the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, but we don't abstain from teaching it because it might offend their sensibilities. There's hard evidence for it being real. Just like there's hard evidence for male/female sex determination. To me, that's why it trumps a person's stated gender. If they are sexually male, I'll always call them male. If they're sexually female, I'll always call them female. That's why I brought up the Third Gender stuff earlier. What do we call them? He? She? It? No, those are all wrong on the basis of gender. For simplicity's sake, calling them by their sex is the easiest thing. And I do the same for all people. No special treatment, good or bad, for anyone under the sun. Ok, so it's hard for you to call someone by what they prefer to be known as. You didn't need to type out a long reply just to say that you can't be respectful of what someone wants to be identified as.
|
|
|
Post by DiBiase is Good on Aug 11, 2014 13:40:13 GMT -5
Ok, it's starting to get a bit too passionate in here. Obviously this topic is one that will always be a touchy subject and so far, it's been argued decently. But it's getting a bit heated now and I would encourage people to maybe take a deep breath before posting something that might be considered flaming. Oh, how I miss the days when it was clearly defined by this.... Because you'd never see Arnie make a film when a man would be feminine and give birth. Technically, everyone starts off as a girl in the womb. Not me! I was always a man. Grrr! Seriously, I once took a piss onto a bonfire, are you accusing me of being a girl at some point?
|
|
FinalGwen
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Particularly fond of muffins.
Posts: 16,432
|
Post by FinalGwen on Aug 11, 2014 13:40:49 GMT -5
The bolded stuff has nothing to do with what I'm talking about at all, so IDK why you typed that out. Just simply call whomever what it is they want to be identify as for their gender or sex. It's that simple. What? Is it that hard for you or something? If that's not what you're talking about, then what you said isn't really pertinent to what I'm talking about. It doesn't matter to me what a person believes, it matters what is. A lot of people don't believe in the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, but we don't abstain from teaching it because it might offend their sensibilities. There's hard evidence for it being real. Just like there's hard evidence for male/female sex determination. To me, that's why it trumps a person's stated gender. If they are sexually male, I'll always call them male. If they're sexually female, I'll always call them female. That's why I brought up the Third Gender stuff earlier. What do we call them? He? She? It? No, those are all wrong on the basis of gender. For simplicity's sake, calling them by their sex is the easiest thing. And I do the same for all people. No special treatment, good or bad, for anyone under the sun. "They" as a gender-neutral singular pronoun is pretty well established in English, dating back to around the 15th century. There's also more modern attempts to create gender-neutral pronouns like "xe" which dates back to the 1970s and is in popular use. The etymological argument is even worse than attempting to force a shaky grasp of science onto cultural roles.
|
|
Lila
El Dandy
Slip N Slide World Champion 1997
Posts: 8,905
|
Post by Lila on Aug 11, 2014 13:41:21 GMT -5
Technically, everyone starts off as a girl in the womb. Not me! I was always a man. Grrr! Seriously, I once took a piss onto a bonfire, are you accusing me of being a girl at some point? Wom(b)an.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2014 13:44:13 GMT -5
Your friend can live whatever life they want to live and that's okay. There is NOTHING wrong with that. But...that doesn't make them something that they are sexually not, however. If I claim that I am a bear and live in the woods, does that make me a bear? Nope. A bear is a quadrupedal caniform animal which belongs to the genus Ursus. The genetics don't match, so...sorry. Airball, no two points, I'm not a bear. I mean, I'm basing my argument on scientific fact and I'm called backwards! If the irony were any thicker, I'd need to be treated for metal poisoning. You're arguing apples and thumbtacks. Did you undergo surgery to make yourself more bearlike in qualities? Did you pay for chemical treatments that altered your appearance as well as speech to be more like that of a bear? Did you entirely dedicate your life to living as a bear while demanding to be addressed as such? No, because that's f***ing stupid and has no place in this argument. I'm not someone you can just "lecture" and convince that your bizarre view of things is accurate because I have something you seem to lack and should probably get before attempting this conversation again, experience interacting with transgendered people. Try talking to someone how spent their life savings and radically changed they way they live because they felt they were wrong gender and explaining to them "Sorry, no matter how hard you try, I'll never see you as what you have for all intents and purposes are because chromosomal manipulation on that scale isn't possible." and see what kind of reactions you get. It's laughably ignorant and shows you have no real grasp on the subject. Whoa whoa, let's back up here. Let's back up a little bit. Say that I DID do all of those things. Why is it that you'd consider it stupid? Because it's weird? Because nobody else has done it? For me, I wouldn't buy it because a bear is genetically a distinct thing from a human. Likewise, a male is genetically distinct from a female. These factors are NOT up for debate. These has been scientifically proven. This is why, going back, I mentioned that UNTIL the genetics can change, I don't buy it. Once they do, I can. But that's a scientific reality that we're a long way from. You can grandstand with the pathos as much as you want, but it doesn't override factual evidence.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2014 13:47:05 GMT -5
If that's not what you're talking about, then what you said isn't really pertinent to what I'm talking about. It doesn't matter to me what a person believes, it matters what is. A lot of people don't believe in the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, but we don't abstain from teaching it because it might offend their sensibilities. There's hard evidence for it being real. Just like there's hard evidence for male/female sex determination. To me, that's why it trumps a person's stated gender. If they are sexually male, I'll always call them male. If they're sexually female, I'll always call them female. That's why I brought up the Third Gender stuff earlier. What do we call them? He? She? It? No, those are all wrong on the basis of gender. For simplicity's sake, calling them by their sex is the easiest thing. And I do the same for all people. No special treatment, good or bad, for anyone under the sun. Ok, so it's hard for you to call someone by what they prefer to be known as. You didn't need to type out a long reply just to say that you can't be respectful of what someone wants to be identified as. But...it's not about being respectful or disrespectful. It's me not agreeing on an abstract. That's the thing. I totally believe people regardless of their femininity or masculinity should be equal.
|
|
|
Post by DiBiase is Good on Aug 11, 2014 13:48:27 GMT -5
Not me! I was always a man. Grrr! Seriously, I once took a piss onto a bonfire, are you accusing me of being a girl at some point? Wom(b)an. Next time I see my dad I'm gonna punch him in the dick.
|
|
Hawk Hart
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Sold his organs.
The Best There Is, the Best There Was, and the Best That There Ever Will Be
Posts: 15,296
|
Post by Hawk Hart on Aug 11, 2014 13:52:41 GMT -5
I'm done with this conversation because it's very obvious that you don't understand that this is not just a biological conversation but a pathological one. It's not about how you feel about the science of the situation. It just isn't. If they're classified as the gender they identify as, then f***ing respect that dude. You can't just say "Oh I respect transgendered people." and in the same breath say "But they're wrong about what they are and I don't respect that because they don't change on a level that they can't." You clearly just want to infuriate as many people as you can while trying to play the "look at how intelligent and clever I am!" game. Look dude, I'm a card carrying member of Mensa, I'm not impressed but some guy hiding behind science he Googled to try and make himself look more informed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2014 13:53:28 GMT -5
If that's not what you're talking about, then what you said isn't really pertinent to what I'm talking about. It doesn't matter to me what a person believes, it matters what is. A lot of people don't believe in the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, but we don't abstain from teaching it because it might offend their sensibilities. There's hard evidence for it being real. Just like there's hard evidence for male/female sex determination. To me, that's why it trumps a person's stated gender. If they are sexually male, I'll always call them male. If they're sexually female, I'll always call them female. That's why I brought up the Third Gender stuff earlier. What do we call them? He? She? It? No, those are all wrong on the basis of gender. For simplicity's sake, calling them by their sex is the easiest thing. And I do the same for all people. No special treatment, good or bad, for anyone under the sun. "They" as a gender-neutral singular pronoun is pretty well established in English, dating back to around the 15th century. There's also more modern attempts to create gender-neutral pronouns like "xe" which dates back to the 1970s and is in popular use. The etymological argument is even worse than attempting to force a shaky grasp of science onto cultural roles. Etymology is really the only thing I'm arguing, though. I don't think the subject of the article should be called "She" when they're genetically still male. I'd be fine with using Xe. "They" is just as confusing, though, because again it's specifically neutral, and also tends to refer to plurals. In writing a species in my story that has no gender (not as we'd understand it, anyway; they wear whatever and believe whatever they want, nobody bats an eye), the species prefers "This" as the singular third-person pronoun. I don't think sex is "shaky" science, though. The basics of male/female genetic dichotomy are pretty standard to the human species. Gender is shaky science, definitely, but that's why the "You must use these culturally accepted terms as absolutes or you're WRONG!" is ludicrous, IMO.
|
|
Lila
El Dandy
Slip N Slide World Champion 1997
Posts: 8,905
|
Post by Lila on Aug 11, 2014 13:56:59 GMT -5
Ok, so it's hard for you to call someone by what they prefer to be known as. You didn't need to type out a long reply just to say that you can't be respectful of what someone wants to be identified as. But...it's not about being respectful or disrespectful. It's me not agreeing on an abstract. That's the thing. I totally believe people regardless of their femininity or masculinity should be equal. Yes it is about being disrespectful because you're purposely denying what someone wants to be identify/called as. You don't have to agree with it at all. Just simply call whomever by what it is they want to be known as. If you can't do that, you are considered to be disrespectful.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2014 13:59:50 GMT -5
Funny that the homophobe turns out to want to be a woman. f*** him/her.
|
|
FinalGwen
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Particularly fond of muffins.
Posts: 16,432
|
Post by FinalGwen on Aug 11, 2014 14:00:50 GMT -5
"They" as a gender-neutral singular pronoun is pretty well established in English, dating back to around the 15th century. There's also more modern attempts to create gender-neutral pronouns like "xe" which dates back to the 1970s and is in popular use. The etymological argument is even worse than attempting to force a shaky grasp of science onto cultural roles. Etymology is really the only thing I'm arguing, though. I don't think the subject of the article should be called "She" when they're genetically still male. I'd be fine with using Xe. "They" is just as confusing, though, because again it's specifically neutral, and also tends to refer to plurals. In writing a species in my story that has no gender (not as we'd understand it, anyway; they wear whatever and believe whatever they want, nobody bats an eye), the species prefers "This" as the singular third-person pronoun. I don't think sex is "shaky" science, though. The basics of male/female genetic dichotomy are pretty standard to the human species. Gender is shaky science, definitely, but that's why the "You must use these culturally accepted terms as absolutes or you're WRONG!" is ludicrous, IMO. XX, XY, XXY, XYY, XO... These are just a few of the different chromosomal combinations there can be. Depending on what happens with the SRY protein and what it attaches to (typically the short arm of the Y chromosome, but this can vary) you can get a male with XX or a female with XY. So you're dealing with absolutes that don't exist in your argument. That's the shaky science I'm referring to. Of course, I'd argue that even if there were only the two combinations that occurred 100% of the time, I'd still take someone's gender identity as more important. I can't see someone's genes, I can only see the gender they want to present as, and only one of these options has societal importance to anyone other than perhaps a physician, so why should our language reflect that route?
|
|
|
Post by Gravedigger's Biscuits on Aug 11, 2014 14:04:10 GMT -5
You clearly just want to infuriate as many people as you can while trying to play the "look at how intelligent and clever I am!" game. Look dude, I'm a card carrying member of Mensa, I'm not impressed but some guy hiding behind science he Googled to try and make himself look more informed. I'm sorry, but no matter what you think of his thoughts and opinions, he's allowed to express them. Just because you don't like it, or agree with it, doesn't make him a troll or someone trying to act smart.
|
|
Lila
El Dandy
Slip N Slide World Champion 1997
Posts: 8,905
|
Post by Lila on Aug 11, 2014 14:04:13 GMT -5
Funny that the homophobe turns out to want to be a woman. f*** him/her. That's quite common with people who have a hard time coming to terms of who they are. You know, trying to act like a typical alpha so no one even second-guesses you. It's the self-hate phase where you don't understand what's "wrong" with you or why you don't feel/operate like the gender you're born with.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2014 14:06:25 GMT -5
I'm done with this conversation because it's very obvious that you don't understand that this is not just a biological conversation but a pathological one. It's not about how you feel about the science of the situation. It just isn't. If they're classified as the gender they identify as, then f***ing respect that dude. You can't just say "Oh I respect transgendered people." and in the same breath say "But they're wrong about what they are and I don't respect that because they don't change on a level that they can't." You clearly just want to infuriate as many people as you can while trying to play the "look at how intelligent and clever I am!" game. Look dude, I'm a card carrying member of Mensa, I'm not impressed but some guy hiding behind science he Googled to try and make himself look more informed. But WHY do I have to agree with something that is purely an abstract? You still haven't answered that. "It just isn't" is not a good answer here. That's the equivalent of "Because I said so." And if THAT is what your argument is founded on, that has no place in this discussion. I don't even know what your argument has to do with what I'm discussing. You belong to Mensa? That's great, but that's not germane to this. That doesn't make your arguments right. It doesn't matter who you know. It doesn't matter what group you belong to. It doesn't matter if I double checked my claims to make sure they were accurate. That's neither here nor there. It doesn't qualify your opinion, nor does it disqualify mine. As for me trying to prove my opinion? Well sure I am. But isn't that why we discuss and argue anything on this site?
|
|
Lila
El Dandy
Slip N Slide World Champion 1997
Posts: 8,905
|
Post by Lila on Aug 11, 2014 14:08:57 GMT -5
You clearly just want to infuriate as many people as you can while trying to play the "look at how intelligent and clever I am!" game. Look dude, I'm a card carrying member of Mensa, I'm not impressed but some guy hiding behind science he Googled to try and make himself look more informed. I'm sorry, but no matter what you think of his thoughts and opinions, he's allowed to express them. Just because you don't like it, or agree with it, doesn't make him a troll or someone trying to act smart. No one said he couldn't express them, even if majority don't agree. What everyone and I are going on about is the pronouns someone wants to be identified as and how purposely not calling them by pronouns of choice is rude.
|
|
|
Post by Gravedigger's Biscuits on Aug 11, 2014 14:11:45 GMT -5
I'm sorry, but no matter what you think of his thoughts and opinions, he's allowed to express them. Just because you don't like it, or agree with it, doesn't make him a troll or someone trying to act smart. No one said he couldn't express them, even if majority don't agree. What everyone and I are going on about is the pronouns someone wants to be identified as and how purposely not calling them by pronouns of choice is rude. That may be true, but that doesn't he mean he's only saying things to annoy other people. Accusing someone of trolling because you don't like them expressing their opinion is silly and immature.
|
|
Hawk Hart
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Sold his organs.
The Best There Is, the Best There Was, and the Best That There Ever Will Be
Posts: 15,296
|
Post by Hawk Hart on Aug 11, 2014 14:11:53 GMT -5
You clearly just want to infuriate as many people as you can while trying to play the "look at how intelligent and clever I am!" game. Look dude, I'm a card carrying member of Mensa, I'm not impressed but some guy hiding behind science he Googled to try and make himself look more informed. I'm sorry, but no matter what you think of his thoughts and opinions, he's allowed to express them. Just because you don't like it, or agree with it, doesn't make him a troll or someone trying to act smart. In history, making a reach is part and parcel of the job. A historian who only makes easy, crowd-pleasing arguments is a grandstanding bozo. A person who makes a tough argument, scrounges evidence and circles the wagons is given respect by their peers for daring to explore things. I much prefer being the latter, but that means that outside my occupational setting, a lot of stuff I say can look quite weird compared to the normal fare on this site. A self-stated contrarian for the sake of "respect." Makes you wonder if anything he says is sincere.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2014 14:15:26 GMT -5
Etymology is really the only thing I'm arguing, though. I don't think the subject of the article should be called "She" when they're genetically still male. I'd be fine with using Xe. "They" is just as confusing, though, because again it's specifically neutral, and also tends to refer to plurals. In writing a species in my story that has no gender (not as we'd understand it, anyway; they wear whatever and believe whatever they want, nobody bats an eye), the species prefers "This" as the singular third-person pronoun. I don't think sex is "shaky" science, though. The basics of male/female genetic dichotomy are pretty standard to the human species. Gender is shaky science, definitely, but that's why the "You must use these culturally accepted terms as absolutes or you're WRONG!" is ludicrous, IMO. XX, XY, XXY, XYY, XO... These are just a few of the different chromosomal combinations there can be. Depending on what happens with the SRY protein and what it attaches to (typically the short arm of the Y chromosome, but this can vary) you can get a male with XX or a female with XY. So you're dealing with absolutes that don't exist in your argument. That's the shaky science I'm referring to. Of course, I'd argue that even if there were only the two combinations that occurred 100% of the time, I'd still take someone's gender identity as more important. I can't see someone's genes, I can only see the gender they want to present as, and only one of these options has societal importance to anyone other than perhaps a physician, so why should our language reflect that route? That's a fair enough point. I mean, I know about the XXY and XYY and the like, but I appreciate you getting to the meat of this discussion. For me, it's not "XX literally is female" and "XY literally is male" but there's a very specific match to each. Looking at them up-close, we can determine which is which, right? Like for example, the "XX is male" instance, because it's an X that is functionally in tune with a Y, is it not?
|
|
|
Post by Raw is Doodie101 on Aug 11, 2014 14:16:31 GMT -5
It's called being respectful. Simple as that. You call person whatever it is that person wants be identified as even if you don't agree with it. Have some courtesy please. Louise Alphonse de Bourbon claims to be King of France. Would that mean he is therefore King of France, lest we offend is royal tastes? But wait a minute, there's other guys who claim that same title. Does that make all of them King of France, too? The answer to all of these would be no. They're royal pretenders. Any of them can CLAIM to be sovereign monarch of the French people, but until one of them gets crowned on a big blue throne and lives at Versailles, there's really no substance to those claims, no matter how strong the claims may be. Or another example. I am not culturally Japanese. I was not born in Japan. I am not descended from anyone Japanese. If I claim to be Japanese, would that therefore mean that I am Japanese? The gender thing is just weird. I shouldn't have to alter reality to accommodate people because they may get offended. I don't think they should face ANY discrimination for who they are or what they do, but I also don't think they deserve special treatment. I fail to see why that's a bad thing. I'm reading this and man I totally agree.
|
|