If someone asked me to call them by the pronoun "she / her" - although they were born as a male - I can agree to this purely as a matter of social convention. I do not need to believe that this person is "really" female or "really" male. In other words, just because I use female pronouns to refer to this person, it doesn't necessarily imply anything in terms of my beliefs about their chromosomes. Conservatives may not happen to like this social convention, and prefer that pronouns used in conversation always mapped onto biology or the gender assigned at birth. However, the fact that progressives disagree, in no way implies that they are confused about the science of biology. And, to argue that this convention should be generally accepted, is not to deny the biology of sex differences. I bring this up because it is a fact that is almost universally misunderstood or misconstrued by conservatives when talking about the issue.
Pronouns
Posts
Total:
327
The trans people who go from he to she or she to he often are phobic and fundamentally against the philosophy of the they/them genderqueers. They mistake each other for allies because they have been low on numbers so far and had to oppose heteronormativity together but trans he to she and she to he is heteronormative, they just switched alignment.
I do not believe a person needs to go by pronouns of another gender in order to be happy in life, their discomfort with their body and birth-assigned sex run far deeper than the momentary joy being called he or she in their new gender gives them. Psychiatry is being pressured into ignoring many non-affirming elements and approaches to treating patients the moment that the patient says they believe they are 'the other gender' (what happened to there being more than two?)
I use desired pronouns to avoid beef with them and cancel culture. I have other things to worry about than the gender somebody wishes to be, even if that person were my cousin or something (I do not need a family feud over such a thing and these people usually enjoy drama, you cannot quietly tell him/her/them your view without them telling others that they know and getting people to force you into silence and an apology).
-->
@rbelivb
I believe that the pronouns one uses to refer to another person, whether it be based on biological sex, outward appearances, social convention, etc. is strictly under their discretion; and reciprocally, how one responds to these pronouns is strictly under their discretion as well.
So, let's say I meet a person who I assume was born male based on musculature, facial hair, jaw line, shoulder width, narrow hips, and other physical symbols conventionally associated with males. But this person happens to have a dress and long curly hair--down to the butt. Now this person asks to be referred to as female, so a few things may ensue:
- I can choose to ignore this request, and use the pronouns with which I feel most comfortable.
- I can choose to ignore this request, and dissociate with this person.
- I can indulge this request, and use the pronouns with which "she" feels most comfortable.
- I can ignore the use of pronouns all together.
Reciprocally:
The person can reject any association with me based on my unwillingness to indulge their requests.
The person can still associate with me despite my unwillingness to indulge their requests.
The person can ignore the use of pronouns all together.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The one thing I will not subscribe to is the use of pronouns being legislated in any way. I do not believe individuals should be conscripted in service to another's self-esteem. I much prefer individuals regulating the use of their pronouns through their own associations.
-->
@RationalMadman
The trans people who go from he to she or she to he often are phobic and fundamentally against the philosophy of the they/them genderqueers. They mistake each other for allies because they have been low on numbers so far and had to oppose heteronormativity together but trans he to she and she to he is heteronormative, they just switched alignment.
The idea of using male or female pronouns is not incompatible with the philosophy of someone who would not use that pronoun. I am male and was born male, but it doesn't mean I'm "fundamentally against" they/them.
I do not believe a person needs to go by pronouns of another gender in order to be happy in life, their discomfort with their body and birth-assigned sex run far deeper than the momentary joy being called he or she in their new gender gives them.
It is their freedom to do so, in my opinion it doesn't even matter if they "need to" do it - they have the choice to identify however they want to.
I use desired pronouns to avoid beef with them and cancel culture.
Then you can rest assured because in fact "cancel culture" is an entirely fabricated talking point invented by right wing think tanks. I would advise that you say what is really on your mind rather than censoring yourself to avoid criticism.
-->
@Athias
So, let's say I meet a person who I assume was born male based on musculature, facial hair, jaw line, shoulder width, narrow hips, and other physical symbols conventionally associated with males. But this person happens to have a dress and long curly hair--down to the butt.
However, based on your position, it should apply not only in this case. For example, imagine that a teacher has a female student that he doesn't like. This student was born female, and is not trans, but is slightly overweight and has some masculine features that she is embarrassed about. The teacher decides to disrespect her by referring to her as male throughout the class, even after she politely asks him not to. Would you maintain your position that this decision is totally up to the teacher's discretion, and that the teacher has no obligation to "indulge" the girl's request to be referred to as female?
-->
@rbelivb
The idea of using male or female pronouns is not incompatible with the philosophy of someone who would not use that pronoun. I am male and was born male, but it doesn't mean I'm "fundamentally against" they/them.
I have come across people who are pro trans and anti they/them. I have also come across many trans people who justified their transition as 'I didn't like my original body so of course I wanted that one'. I didn't ask if you as a cis male approve of genderqueers or not, nor did I imply cis people factored into my noticing of a contradiction.
It is their freedom to do so, in my opinion it doesn't even matter if they "need to" do it - they have the choice to identify however they want to.
This is where the transphobic 'toaster' and 'helicopter' identification come to mind. It's one-way respect. Society mocks furries and wouldn't call a person who thrives and enjoys roleplaying as a dog or chimpanzee as being identified that way, nor would they ever allow a person to engage in a lot of plastic surgery and use face paint to transition race and ethnicity. They would never allow a 78 year old who wants to feel like a young woman or man to identify as that age in any official capacity... In constrast, we are the devil to hold people to the same standard with their gender (which was always meant to be 'sex' it was male vs female, you didn't list 'man' or 'woman' and still don't list that next to this slot called 'gender' on official forms).
I use desired pronouns to avoid beef with them and cancel culture.Then you can rest assured because in fact "cancel culture" is an entirely fabricated talking point invented by right wing think tanks. I would advise that you say what is really on your mind rather than censoring yourself to avoid criticism.
It isn't. I've experienced it first-hand in my own household on other matters. It's very real, my household growing up leans/leaned left-wing but I am fully aware that the right-wing has their own variation of cancel culture such as not daring to talk pro-choice etc in certain households. I'd be alienated by my (expecially extended) family and friends (or rather, aquaintances) if I would dare be open about my outlook on certain matters. I won't specify my IRL career status and fear with regards to my account here being linked to the real me or certain opinions and kinks I have. I am certain there'd be some negative impact but nothing life-threatening. Anybody blackmailing has a lot stacked against them, I have levels to how hard cancel culture can truly affect me, I am not very famous or anything too fragile. I make sure the people I rely on for income (bosses and/or people who could get me fired and/or barred from places I generate income) like me beyond what Internet beef is likely to cause or can't hurt me if they dislike me and for years have stayed completely off social media in any outspoken sense.
So, I am fully aware how real cancel culture is, I am just in a personal position where I don't have deep fear of it.
-->
@rbelivb
Perhaps we should do away altogether, with the silly convention of talking to each other.....And just wave and/or smile or scowl.
Device addicts are just about at that point anyway. (Let's be fair, device addiction is the new normal).
And I never did get the French language, with all those m and f words.
Though in terms of pronouns and in all seriousness:
Referring to One singular and They plural is quite an old convention.
And satirically, does away with all that needless under the trousers/skirt confusion.
And speaking of gender neutral non-presumptive dress code. Perhaps we should all wear green Burkas...But definitely not pink or blue, as that would be seen as far too provocative and/or offensive.......And in all seriousness once again, non-verbal communication is just as definitive as pronouns are.
-->
@rbelivb
However, based on your position, it should apply not only in this case.
Naturally.
For example, imagine that a teacher has a female student that he doesn't like. This student was born female, and is not trans, but is slightly overweight and has some masculine features that she is embarrassed about. The teacher decides to disrespect her by referring to her as male throughout the class, even after she politely asks him not to. Would you maintain your position that this decision is totally up to the teacher's discretion, and that the teacher has no obligation to "indulge" the girl's request to be referred to as female?
To answer your question directly, yes. But there's more going on in the scenario you've described. Namely, an employer who's working on school property. If this teacher's behavior is in violation of quantifiable rules which he agreed to either explicitly or implicitly upon employment, then while he maintains discretion in which speech he indulges, the school's management maintains the proprietor's proxy, as well as discretion in their response. So, in other words the ball is in his court. Let's entertain the notion that the school stands by the statements of their employee, then the ball is in the female student's court--i.e. she can either ignore the teacher, or find another school.
-->
@RationalMadman
This is where the transphobic 'toaster' and 'helicopter' identification come to mind. It's one-way respect. Society mocks furries and wouldn't call a person who thrives and enjoys roleplaying as a dog or chimpanzee as being identified that way, nor would they ever allow a person to engage in a lot of plastic surgery and use face paint to transition race and ethnicity. They would never allow a 78 year old who wants to feel like a young woman or man to identify as that age in any official capacity... In constrast, we are the devil to hold people to the same standard with their gender (which was always meant to be 'sex' it was male vs female, you didn't list 'man' or 'woman' and still don't list that next to this slot called 'gender' on official forms).
Gender is simply related to people's identity in a fundamentally different way from any of those other facets. We cannot simply compare across them and apply the same rules. For example, ethnicity is inherently tied to both heritage (family lineage) and biology, as well as one's entire cultural surrounding, while species and age have important ethical connections to one's level of agency. Gender, on the other hand is linked to one's self-expression, to their sexual life, and the interplay between the genders is a dynamic which is internal to the particular culture - it is a category which you can't simply compare to any others which apply cross-culturally to an extent. The difference is in being different - they aren't the same thing.
It isn't. I've experienced it first-hand in my own household on other matters. It's very real, my household growing up leans/leaned left-wing but I am fully aware that the right-wing has their own variation of cancel culture such as not daring to talk pro-choice etc in certain households. I'd be alienated by my (expecially extended) family and friends (or rather, aquaintances) if I would dare be open about my outlook on certain matters. I won't specify my IRL career status and fear with regards to my account here being linked to the real me or certain opinions and kinks I have. I am certain there'd be some negative impact but nothing life-threatening. Anybody blackmailing has a lot stacked against them, I have levels to how hard cancel culture can truly affect me, I am not very famous or anything too fragile. I make sure the people I rely on for income (bosses and/or people who could get me fired and/or barred from places I generate income) like me beyond what Internet beef is likely to cause or can't hurt me if they dislike me and for years have stayed completely off social media in any outspoken sense.
Notwithstanding those who break off personal or professional relationships for political reasons, it still does not merit the use of a political keyword, a fixed idea of the right which is in itself a piece of propaganda and nothing more. I empathize with your personal issues, but the existence of oversensitive people is not at all the outgrowth of the left, or any circumscribed "culture" or ethnicity which is what this phrase is attempting to portray. Likewise, with terms like "grooming" - the right is intentionally rolling out these terms in an attempt to gain linguistic territory. Even to entertain these phrases as part of one's vocabulary, is to have given part of one's brain over to something vast and inhuman, to become an advertising robot on behalf of the forces of fascism.
-->
@Athias
To answer your question directly, yes. But there's more going on in the scenario you've described. Namely, an employer who's working on school property. If this teacher's behavior is in violation of quantifiable rules which he agreed to either explicitly or implicitly upon employment, then while he maintains discretion in which speech he indulges, the school's management maintains the proprietor's proxy, as well as discretion in their response. So, in other words the ball is in his court. Let's entertain the notion that the school stands by the statements of their employee, then the ball is in the female student's court--i.e. she can either ignore the teacher, or find another school.
I would point out that most often what gets called "free speech" issues, are most often institutional issues of the sort you have just described, as opposed to straightforwardly legal issues. For example, Jordan Peterson who was working within the parameters of a teaching position - the considerations are almost exactly parallel here. So I would just point out that your proposed solution - which I agree with - would reduce the scope of "free speech" to the legal domain, which would be seen as a loss to most of those who currently claim to be advocates for the "free speech" side.
-->
@rbelivb
Gender is simply related to people's identity in a fundamentally different way from any of those other facets.
No, that is logically fallacious in both ends of the double standard.
We cannot simply compare across them and apply the same rules.
We can.
For example, ethnicity is inherently tied to both heritage (family lineage) and biology
Actually, that is a biological-normative social construct. Research the actual definition of ethnicity and contrast it to race, we as a society do to ethnicity what conservatives do to gender.
, as well as one's entire cultural surrounding,
Eminem grew up with predominantly african american cultural surroundings. Is he that ethnicity under your understanding?
while species and age have important ethical connections to one's level of agency.
Not the one you like other people to call you, just the one you really are, like a male person roleplaying as a woman 24/7 and vice versa telling us to respect that roleplay as if it were real.
Gender, on the other hand is linked to one's self-expression,
Furries blatantly want to self express their fantasy to be a species they are not. Same with the age thing.
to their sexual life,
There are kinks linked to furry and/or age regressive play. There are all sorts of parallels here actually.
and the interplay between the genders is a dynamic which is internal to the particular culture - it is a category which you can't simply compare to any others which apply cross-culturally to an extent. The difference is in being different - they aren't the same thing.
Are males the same as females? I am curious where you draw this difference focus from if you are saying we should ignore differences when people get offended.
-->
@rbelivb
I would point out that most often what gets called "free speech" issues, are most often institutional issues of the sort you have just described, as opposed to straightforwardly legal issues. For example, Jordan Peterson who was working within the parameters of a teaching position - the considerations are almost exactly parallel here. So I would just point out that your proposed solution - which I agree with - would reduce the scope of "free speech" to the legal domain, which would be seen as a loss to most of those who currently claim to be advocates for the "free speech" side.
One only has "free speech" on one's own property.
-->
@rbelivb
Notwithstanding those who break off personal or professional relationships for political reasons, it still does not merit the use of a political keyword, a fixed idea of the right which is in itself a piece of propaganda and nothing more.
It actually also refers to what the far right did under Hitler and still do in many Sharia right-wing countries (ironic that is it predominantly the right wing conservatives are worries about Islam spreading and influencing the West, when Islam is a greater enemy of the left wing, liberal agenda)... not sure if you realise you are the one brainwashed by loaded partisan propaganda which makes you assume the phrase 'cancel culture' is an invention to hurt your precious (looks at profile) 'libertarian' agenda that you have been programmed to conflate all issues the News feeds you to conflate with each others.
I am not brainwashed whatsoever, that is why I can use a term the right wing LIBERTARIANS (you fool...) coined, since it is a brilliant phrase regardless who it came from...
I empathize with your personal issues, but the existence of oversensitive people is not at all the outgrowth of the left,
I know. I am a diehard progressive who does not conflate transgender issues with gay rights issues nor with my agenda to make life fair on the poor and less able, which is the core of my left-wing alignment, not the social issue of transgenderism.
How can we be feminist if we deny what a female is? I am a huge fan of JK rowling's hard stance on the matter and empathise with TERFs while still being a men's rights advocate and appreciating what Depp just did for male victims of abuse.
or any circumscribed "culture" or ethnicity which is what this phrase is attempting to portray. Likewise, with terms like "grooming" - the right is intentionally rolling out these terms in an attempt to gain linguistic territory. Even to entertain these phrases as part of one's vocabulary, is to have given part of one's brain over to something vast and inhuman, to become an advertising robot on behalf of the forces of fascism
That is quite ironic and amusing. You made a thread saying the conservatives should stop crying and use terms the others demand them to, yet you are too stubborn and proud to use 'cancel culture' just because they coined the term. This could not be more ironic.
-->
@rbelivb
However, based on your position, it should apply not only in this case. For example, imagine that a teacher has a female student that he doesn't like. This student was born female, and is not trans, but is slightly overweight and has some masculine features that she is embarrassed about. The teacher decides to disrespect her by referring to her as male throughout the class, even after she politely asks him not to. Would you maintain your position that this decision is totally up to the teacher's discretion, and that the teacher has no obligation to "indulge" the girl's request to be referred to as female?
great example
-->
@RationalMadman
(ironic that is it predominantly the right wing conservatives are worries about Islam spreading and influencing the West, when Islam is a greater enemy of the left wing, liberal agenda)
great point
-->
@Athias
One only has "free speech" on one's own property.
some corporations will fire you for posting pictures of yourself using a competitor's product
this is not a joke
Firedash Cyanide & Happiness Shorts - YouTube
I really don't have much to say 'myself, right 'this second.
-->
@rbelivb
For example, imagine that a teacher has a female student that he doesn't like. This student was born female, and is not trans, but is slightly overweight and has some masculine features that she is embarrassed about. The teacher decides to disrespect her by referring to her as male throughout the class, even after she politely asks him not to. Would you maintain your position that this decision is totally up to the teacher's discretion, and that the teacher has no obligation to "indulge" the girl's request to be referred to as female.
That is going on daily in one of the forums here. A male is call female to insult him. I can see only guess because the offenders consider females inferior human beings. Which is part of the issue with trans females and not trans males.
Genesis 2:18 ESV / Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.”
-->
@rbelivb
Conservatives may not happen to like this social convention, and prefer that pronouns used in conversation always mapped onto biology or the gender assigned at birth. However, the fact that progressives disagree, in no way implies that they are confused about the science of biology.
First, I've never encountered a gender ideologist who believes that calling a trans man a man is scientifically wrong and yet support it on the grounds that it is a societal convention.
Second, do societal conventions trump truth? Oughtn't it be the priority of society to first uncover what is most accurate and then act in accordance with it?
-->
@Bones
do societal conventions trump truth?
some things are PROVABLY TRUE
some things are PROVABLY FALSE
these two categories cover less than 1% of human knowledge
everything else (including one's own gender) is a matter of OPINION
(It is important to maintain a constant awareness of and vigilant respect of our epistemological limits.)
Words have power and even as a social convention using the word she to refer to a male pretending to be a female as a result of a perverse self hate, can slowly start altering your worldview.
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Words have power
For sure......There was a certain amount of energy in that statement.
It's bound to explode in someone's head.
-->
@rbelivb
Of course using pronouns does not imply anything about chromosomes, and not a single reasonble person actually believes that chromosomes can change. That being said, it does imply something about gender. Namely, that gender is both seperate and more important than sex.
We do not have to distinguish between gender and sex. According to the 2007 definition of gender from Merriam Webster gender means: “sex.” Clearly, it is a perfectly normal use of the word, but the left is attempting to erase this meaning. However, that being said, there is some truth in what they say. Another definition that has been widely used is: “the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex.” This definition is not just left-wing propaganda, and it is a perfectly valid use of the word.
Of course, this is not the definition that the left is talking about. While at first glance the previous definition may seem to confirm the validity of transgenderism, it actually confirms the opposite. Gender is the set of traits that sociology associates with sex — that is one of the two biological sexes. This is one of the main things that the left gets wrong about gender, gender is not a social construct, it is the set of traits associated with the social constructs around biological sex. Because gender is explicitly based on your biological sex, it is impossible to change your gender, but theoretically it is still possible to change ones perceived gender.
The whole point of using pronouns is to change this percieved gender, and to be 'polite'. The problem is that when we do this we create a rhetorical link to gender as an independent concept, rather than something that is inherently dependent on sex. From there gender is often conflated with sex, and this is where we get the idea that a man who is transgeder should be able to compete in womans sports — a field seperated by sex not gender, and other such ideas.
The problem with changing language, is that language communicates ideas and creates rhetoric, and this leads to semantic overload which enables bad ideas to take hold simply because we have changed the language. When you call someone a woman or a man whether they are or not it creates the perception they are, and sooner or later people start to believe it or to conform out of fear.
-->
@Kritikal
conform out of fear.
Something gay and transgender people have done for a long time.
-->
@Kritikal
It comes down to the fact that what the left side in this issue is arguing for involves some degree of social change. Regardless of what is stated in Merriam Webster or anywhere else, definitions and meanings of words are dependent only on the shared understandings of those using the words - in fact this is why entirely constructed languages such as Esperanto or Klingon are able to function at all. Therefore, it is entirely possible for a new social understanding to become commonplace, for example in which a second use for the term "female" can understood as shorthand for "trans female" and the pronoun "she" or "her" can be used to refer also to trans females. Likewise with "they / them" pronouns. Dictionaries change, and the use of language changes over time - new words appear, old words are used in new ways, and this does not lead to any kind of Orwellian "semantic overload" so long as there is a shared understanding of the underlying material facts. Nobody, on any side of this debate is at all confused about the biological differences between a trans person and non-trans, and the point of disagreement entirely revolves around the perceived inconvenience or incursion upon the freedoms of those who would need to adapt to the social change involved in transgenderism being viewed as ethically neutral rather than as a deviant, unhealthy or perverse behavior.
-->
@rbelivb
Nobody, on any side of this debate is at all confused about the biological differences between a trans person and non-trans,
some people insist that both michelle obama and angela merkel are trans-men
and these people mostly identify as "conservative"
It is important to maintain a constant awareness of and vigilant respect of our epistemological limits.
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Words have power and even as a social convention using the word she to refer to a male pretending to be a female as a result of a perverse self hate, can slowly start altering your worldview.
It is a distortion to say that we are talking about someone who is "really male" and "pretending" to be female. It is a male who transitions into a trans female, and presumably wears the clothes or otherwise assumes the role traditionally taken by a female. However, there is no "illusion" that the male is "really" a female - in other words, that they are not trans. This is the point of my original post: inserting some idea that they are "deluded" about an underlying reality is a piece of propaganda or bias. You might think that a male deciding to become a trans female is wrong, and that social conventions should not be changed, and you can make the argument for that. But it is another thing to lie, distort the facts, or to frame issues in a grossly misleading way.
-->
@Bones
First, I've never encountered a gender ideologist who believes that calling a trans man a man is scientifically wrong and yet support it on the grounds that it is a societal convention.
The use of the term is not "scientifically wrong" as long as it supports a shared understanding of the underlying biological facts.
-->
@rbelivb
they are "deluded" about an underlying reality
this really (really, really) begs the question of "why is it so important to know what someone looks like naked" ?
this is such a non-issue
ESTJ needs to figure out that the entire world does not see everything through their ESTJ eyes