Poll: Gender recognition offence

[Lightknight]

If they aren't presenting then no, they don't have a right to be mad. It's simple math. If they aren't presenting as the gender they identify with then the only alternatives are that they're either presenting as their sex or presenting neutral. The gender norms are to be assumed unless indicated otherwise as to avoid offending cis people as well whose feelings and desires to be seen as what they identify as are just as valuable.

So you refer to cisgender men who are feminine as women and cisgender women who are butch as men? I think not. People have the right to complain if you misgender them, you don't agree, but insisting on referring to someone counter to their wishes isn't about being correct... It's being an arsehole, plain and simple. Some trans women work in construction, some trans men are seamstresses, some cis men like to wear skirts, some cis women dress like lumberjacks. Treating someone different than their wishes because of their presentation isn't right, it's not being correct, it's being exclusionary, because you're violating them as a person. So yeah, a trans woman who presents like a man has every right to be mad at you, if you treat her opposite her identity. This is because you're actively invalidating her as a woman. Presentation is not identity, period.

No, the OP stresses that the conditions here are if they look like their sex and present as their sex. I am merely stating that anyone who is presenting as anything other than their preferred gender has no right to be offended when a stranger doesn't correctly identify their preferred gender.

Ask my FtM husband for example. When he was presenting as his female sex he did not expect to be called sir or any masculine terms because he was presenting as female. Once he started presenting as male, that is when he began to feel offended with feminine terms going his way. If a cis individual is presenting as a trans individual then that is the same risk they are running. Please understand that it would be less harmful to confuse a cis individual with a trans individual than vice versa due to the depression that comes with body dysphoria that encourages presenting. You've got to see this from the perspective of a stranger, either they're looking at a butch female or they're looking at a transman. While I would generally use a gender neutral term in that scenario until new information exists, I am personally talking about someone who is presenting as a sex opposite their gender or as a neutral/ambiguous sex. At which point the stranger not knowing your sex isn't an unexpected result given no evidence to the contrary and the gender/sex norms being vastly established experientially in society. It's not like there's a special hat all trans people wear that labels exactly what pronouns we should be using. And even then, the premise of this thread would be if they weren't wearing said hat or were wearing a hat that used opposite pronouns.

I am not referring to someone who knows your gender identity and just refuses to acknowledge that. We've had multiple friends refuse to call my spouse by the new name for example, which has made our regular home parties kinda awkward. I am a little bit wary of calling him by the new name too only because of five years of using the female name and how bad I am with names in general. I've messed up a few times accidentally and at least he recognizes I'm not trying to be a dick. But it has led to me using names far less in the relationship.

(Yes, my life has changed a lot since we last spoke on transgender issues. It has been incredibly stressful to learn that my wife had entered marriage with me without revealing at the time that she wanted to be a he. He is also bisexual which explains the continued attraction and desire to remain married to me. I'm only three weeks into this knowledge and am struggling to determine what this means for our marriage, particularly if it means a refusal to bear children and also the fact that I have no homoerotic orientation. It would be horrific for this to mean my best friend and I are ipso facto incompatible. I already know the importance of supporting him but I'm terrified of the idea that not only could he not meet my needs due to this but I may not be able to meet his since on some level I'd always have to view him as a her due to my orientation. I've maintained an air of focusing on his depression rather than on the extreme pain of betrayal a five year lie has caused me. So um... any advice there would be much appreciated, I have waiting long enough to discuss the topic so as to no longer be in panic mode. I still desperately want to avoid HRT and any surgery and desperately want children, the children more than anything, but if presenting isn't enough for him then I have no right to ask him to deal with depression for the rest of his life just because I want to keep the body of the wife I married in my life)

 

[happyninja42]

snip

I can't speak on any of the other issues you mentioned, but as far as the children question, there is always the option of IVF with a surrogate. The fact that you might not be able to have your husband agree to bear the child personally, doesn't mean you can't still have a child with that person, genetically speaking. Of course he would need to agree, but that's a perfectly viable option. I don't know if HRT would cause infertility issues? Not a doctor so I don't know, but if he hasn't started that yet, and assuming he is medically fit as far as eggs go, it shouldn't be too much of an ordeal to preserve some eggs now, before any treatments make that less optimal. *shrugs* It's an option at least.

 

[Lightknight]

snip

I can't speak on any of the other issues you mentioned, but as far as the children question, there is always the option of IVF with a surrogate. The fact that you might not be able to have your husband agree to bear the child personally, doesn't mean you can't still have a child with that person, genetically speaking. Of course he would need to agree, but that's a perfectly viable option. I don't know if HRT would cause infertility issues? Not a doctor so I don't know, but if he hasn't started that yet, and assuming he is medically fit as far as eggs go, it shouldn't be too much of an ordeal to preserve some eggs now, before any treatments make that less optimal. *shrugs* It's an option at least.

HRT stops ovulation but from what I've read you can stop it and ovulation returns.

Yes, surrogates are an alternative. It would cost me something like sixty thousand dollars to six figures (ugh) and that's regardless of whether or not a child is born. Not only that, but I don't just want a child, I want children. Plural.

So I can either go into financial ruin, my spouse would have to undergo significant distress, or we'd have to part ways and roll the dice that we could ever find anyone we love as much as each other again. I mean, we're that couple, the one everyone thinks is just perfect for each other. And we have been, so the third option would be devastating but may be necessary for a chance of mutual happiness.

 

[01189998819991197253]

The problem is with someone wanting to be identified as what they are not, is that doing so is literally impossible for a rational human being.

Words do not have objective meanings. Their meaning is defined by general use; see also that one of the definitions of the word "literal" is now "not literal." Anyone who finds it genuinely impossible to assign a new meaning to a word either has a neurological impairment of some kind or else is trying to avoid responsibility for their choices by claiming that objective universal forces prevent them from doing so.

I got the sense he was talking about someone's internal thoughts and resulting sincerity, not their behavior. I'll call someone whatever they want to be called, and respect them as that gender or non-gender. I believe they have an incurable and basically untreatable (except by making accommodation with it) disorder with a neurological basis. If I had a condition like that, equally incurable, I'd hope that people would make some (what is really minimal) effort to meet me halfway too.

What I wouldn't expect is that people should believe all of the things I do about my condition, as a prerequisite for acceptance.

 

[happyninja42]

snip

I can't speak on any of the other issues you mentioned, but as far as the children question, there is always the option of IVF with a surrogate. The fact that you might not be able to have your husband agree to bear the child personally, doesn't mean you can't still have a child with that person, genetically speaking. Of course he would need to agree, but that's a perfectly viable option. I don't know if HRT would cause infertility issues? Not a doctor so I don't know, but if he hasn't started that yet, and assuming he is medically fit as far as eggs go, it shouldn't be too much of an ordeal to preserve some eggs now, before any treatments make that less optimal. *shrugs* It's an option at least.

HRT stops ovulation but from what I've read you can stop it and ovulation returns.

Yes, surrogates are an alternative. It would cost me something like sixty thousand dollars to six figures (ugh) and that's regardless of whether or not a child is born. Not only that, but I don't just want a child, I want children. Plural.

So I can either go into financial ruin, my spouse would have to undergo significant distress, or we'd have to part ways and roll the dice that we could ever find anyone we love as much as each other again. I mean, we're that couple, the one everyone thinks is just perfect for each other. And we have been, so the third option would be devastating but may be necessary for a chance of mutual happiness.

I don't know what to say friend. I don't envy you your situation, for either of you. I'm sure it's not an easy time for him either. I...yeah, I got nothing. I hope it works out for you both.

 

[Siege_TF]

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck I'm going to call it a ****ing duck.
If it insists it's not a duck I'm liable to refer to it as 'creature' if I'm not at work, because I'm not obligated to humor creature's neurosis.

 

[Politrukk]

The poll doesn't seem any connection to the thread.

The poll is talking about someone's sex. If someone has the physical characteristics of a certain sex (as evidenced by their DNA and hormone levels, for example), it's obviously not wrong to call them being an example of that sex.

The thing is, you generally don't even have this information, and I personally couldn't care less for it unless I'm trying to produce offspring with that specific person (which for any random person you can safely assume I don't).

Then the OP continues to talk about gender instead ...

You're misinterpreting this on purpose?

The point is that obviously there is a difference between sex and gender these days, but how can one identify someones gender if they in every way look and approach you as part of the original binary(that is based upon their sex)?

 

[Lightknight]

snip

I can't speak on any of the other issues you mentioned, but as far as the children question, there is always the option of IVF with a surrogate. The fact that you might not be able to have your husband agree to bear the child personally, doesn't mean you can't still have a child with that person, genetically speaking. Of course he would need to agree, but that's a perfectly viable option. I don't know if HRT would cause infertility issues? Not a doctor so I don't know, but if he hasn't started that yet, and assuming he is medically fit as far as eggs go, it shouldn't be too much of an ordeal to preserve some eggs now, before any treatments make that less optimal. *shrugs* It's an option at least.

HRT stops ovulation but from what I've read you can stop it and ovulation returns.

Yes, surrogates are an alternative. It would cost me something like sixty thousand dollars to six figures (ugh) and that's regardless of whether or not a child is born. Not only that, but I don't just want a child, I want children. Plural.

So I can either go into financial ruin, my spouse would have to undergo significant distress, or we'd have to part ways and roll the dice that we could ever find anyone we love as much as each other again. I mean, we're that couple, the one everyone thinks is just perfect for each other. And we have been, so the third option would be devastating but may be necessary for a chance of mutual happiness.

I don't know what to say friend. I don't envy you your situation, for either of you. I'm sure it's not an easy time for him either. I...yeah, I got nothing. I hope it works out for you both.

To be fair, this is the response that literally every person I've asked for advice has had. So don't feel about coming up short on this. I think I'll make a thread for it myself, it could help me adjust. If I get what I want he doesn't get what he wants and vice versa.

 

[Politrukk]

The problem is with someone wanting to be identified as what they are not, is that doing so is literally impossible for a rational human being. It's not a matter of needing to be more open minded and accepting, its asking people to do something that is logically impossible for them to do.

Imagine I showed you a tomato and said "from now on, I want you to call this thing a bicycle". It is possible that you might start calling the tomatoes bicycles. Maybe because you want to humor me or because you're afraid of me. But in your mind you will think, "I'm calling tomatoes a bicycles now". The most you can do is say the words, the concept is impossible for you, or any rational person, to fully accept.

I think you have the right of it sir/madam.

Perhaps my reactions in this thread are a bit loaded but yours is a pretty clean cut view.

 

[ThatOtherGirl]

Edit: moving this comment to the thread for this.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Its not that I disagree with you, but I have always seen Evilthecat argue that gender is propogated by social factors only.

Only in the sense that that is definitively correct. If something were not "propagated by social factors only" but rather by the hormonal processes of sex differentiation, it would not be gender, it would be sex. The shape of a person's genitals, for example is not propagated by social factors only, so when we talk about the shape of a person's genitals we are describing their sex, specifically their morphological sex (which may not conform with their gonadal sex).

I will admit that I find the notion that complex patterns of human behaviour or detailed cognitive processes like thoughts and desires are predetermined by what kind of cells predominate in a person's gonads is kind of laughable. Anything which relies on substances within the body possessing seemingly magical properties or being able to produce extremely complex structures from incredibly simple coding causes my cynicism glands to start firing. But I have always said that once the mechanism for biological determination of sex typed behaviours can be demonstrated in its entirety, once it moves beyond simply "this behaviour exists, therefore biology" then I will freely admit my mistake in this regard.

 

[ThatOtherGirl]

Its not that I disagree with you, but I have always seen Evilthecat argue that gender is propogated by social factors only.

Only in the sense that that is definitively correct. If something were not "propagated by social factors only" but rather by the hormonal processes of sex differentiation, it would not be gender, it would be sex. The shape of a person's genitals, for example is not propagated by social factors only, so when we talk about the shape of a person's genitals we are describing their sex, specifically their morphological sex (which may not conform with their gonadal sex).

I will admit that I find the notion that complex patterns of human behaviour or detailed cognitive processes like thoughts and desires are predetermined by what kind of cells predominate in a person's gonads is kind of laughable. Anything which relies on substances within the body possessing seemingly magical properties or being able to produce extremely complex structures from incredibly simple coding causes my cynicism glands to start firing. But I have always said that once the mechanism for biological determination of sex typed behaviours can be demonstrated in its entirety, once it moves beyond simply "this behaviour exists, therefore biology" then I will freely admit my mistake in this regard.

Well, you are reducing an extremely complex thing down to a binary question, which is virtually never justified. We do know highly complex social behaviors can be instinctual, we have frequently observed such outside of humanity, and we have no real reason to suppose humans are special.

Complex expression of traits is based on a combination of both inherent type and environmental influences. This is true of virtually every other trait expressed in an animal (including humans), I see no reason why it should be different for mental processes.

You want to draw a clean line with gender on one side and sex on the other, social influences vs biological influences. Chances are that clean line does not exist.

 

[Rosiv]

Its not that I disagree with you, but I have always seen Evilthecat argue that gender is propogated by social factors only.

Only in the sense that that is definitively correct. If something were not "propagated by social factors only" but rather by the hormonal processes of sex differentiation, it would not be gender, it would be sex. The shape of a person's genitals, for example is not propagated by social factors only, so when we talk about the shape of a person's genitals we are describing their sex, specifically their morphological sex (which may not conform with their gonadal sex).

I will admit that I find the notion that complex patterns of human behaviour or detailed cognitive processes like thoughts and desires are predetermined by what kind of cells predominate in a person's gonads is kind of laughable. Anything which relies on substances within the body possessing seemingly magical properties or being able to produce extremely complex structures from incredibly simple coding causes my cynicism glands to start firing. But I have always said that once the mechanism for biological determination of sex typed behaviours can be demonstrated in its entirety, once it moves beyond simply "this behaviour exists, therefore biology" then I will freely admit my mistake in this regard.

Well to be honest I do not really understand your response. I do not mean it in a rhetorical sense,; maybe I am tired from final exams, but Are you saying that since gender is observed as behavior, that we should treat it under the study of sociology, and not biology, for biology would deal with "tangibles"?

I just don't know why we would exclude biology from the table of disscussion, I mean there is research being done in the field of gender and biology. I would like to assume it is all not flawed, maybe it is. Shouldnt a topic only be not studied when someone does not ask the question? (Or funds the study of the question i guess...)Neuroscience I guess would be that werid mix of biology and psychology, so I don't know if they have domain in studying gender in your thoughts.

When someone states that biology is the sole cause of anything, I would be skeptical as well. I mean social factors can affect biology, and we know ones biology can influence behaviors. Am I making a slippery slope argument or something? Or a generalization? Sorry for the ramble, I just wasn't sure I would have time to respond.

 

[01189998819991197253]

Having read this thread in its entirety, I think this new study would be well suited to it.

http://news.sciencemag.org/brain-behavior/2015/11/brains-men-and-women-aren-t-really-different-study-finds

In the mid-19th century, researchers claimed they could tell the sex of an individual just by looking at their disembodied brain. But a new study finds that human brains do not fit neatly into ?male? and ?female? categories. Indeed, all of our brains seem to share a patchwork of forms; some that are more common in males, others that are more common in females, and some that are common to both. The findings could change how scientists study the brain and even how society defines gender.

For the purposes of this debate, it might be worth accepting how little we understand the brain and stop talking about "male and female brains". It's bullshit, and known to be bullshit for a while. It might also be good to stop pretending that humans are not what we obviously are, and that's more continuum than discrete when it comes to a lot of things. Most things perhaps.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Well, you are reducing an extremely complex thing down to a binary question, which is virtually never justified. We do know highly complex social behaviors can be instinctual, we have frequently observed such outside of humanity, and we have no real reason to suppose humans are special.

Actually, when it comes to cognition, we absolutely do have reason to suppose that humans are special. Not completely special, sure. Other animals with exceptionally high intelligence share many of our qualities, but there is still an order of magnitude difference between humans and all other animals.

We have instinctive behaviours. They are present in us from birth, although we grow out of most of them as we age. When you press your finger against a newborn infant's palm it will grip. That is an instinct. When you put something against its mouth it will suckle. That is an instinct. Crying to indicate distress is an instinct. These are simple, predictable responses to stimuli.

Even more complex "instincts" in animals are relatively simple. Spiders will spin beautiful and complex webs, but the webs will always be the same pattern because they are created by a simple, predictable sequence of behaviours common to all spiders of that species.

When people allege that extremely complex social behaviours, like role distribution or identity formation, are "instinctive", they are relying on a popular misuse of the term "instinctive" to describe any deep seated behaviour pattern. I might feel that I "instinctively shudder" when my ex enters the room, or a homophobe might feel "instinctively disgusted" by the thought of touching a person of the same sex. These are not real instincts, merely deep seated or strongly expressed reactions which are felt to be outside of the conscious control of the person experiencing them them. There is no convincing mechanism to explain how these things might be produced instinctively, just as there is no convincing mechanism to explain why role distribution or identity formation might be produced instinctively. They are too complex, and lack the predictability of actual instinctive behaviours.

I just don't know why we would exclude biology from the table of disscussion, I mean there is research being done in the field of gender and biology.

No, there is research being done in the field of sex and biology. Anything primarily related to biology is sex, the term "gender" refers specifically to the social dimensions of sex.

Neurobiological research into differences between men and women is still sexual difference research, because it deals with anatomical/biological differences between men and women. Research into women's shoe buying habits would be gender research, because it deals with social differences between men and women.

Maintaining the distinction is a useful heuristic tool (even if it is flawed in purely epistemological terms) because it helps us to spot when a conclusion does not match the methodology used to produce it. If someone is researching women's shoe buying habits and then claiming to have discovered neurological differences between men and women, something is very wrong there.

 

[Dalrien]

What I'm getting from this thread Is that I should use "Them", "they" or "that" to every single person I meet irregardless of whether or not "normal" people are the incredibly vast majority, on the off-chance that I might accidentally offend an abnormally gendered individual.

Saying "Hey, you" Isn't exactly a remedy for every single social encounter.

Yes, I am using hyberbole.

 

[IamLEAM1983]

Seeing as issues of self-perception aren't as immediately perceptible as actually realized transsexual transitions, I don't see where the harm is. If someone looks and acts like a guy, using "him", "Sir" and the like feels like the natural thing to do. If the first thing a hypothetical someone does when I refer to them is jump down my throat for not respecting their non-obvious personal gender policy, then something's clearly wrong.

It's not like we could feasibly wear our preferred pronouns on our sleeves on a continuous basis.

"Hey, look at my snazzy shoulder patch! See how it identifies me as a cis hetero male and please respect that, or else I'll ram my fist down your throat because Tumblr didn't teach me self-restraint!"

 

[Politrukk]

Having read this thread in its entirety, I think this new study would be well suited to it.

http://news.sciencemag.org/brain-behavior/2015/11/brains-men-and-women-aren-t-really-different-study-finds

In the mid-19th century, researchers claimed they could tell the sex of an individual just by looking at their disembodied brain. But a new study finds that human brains do not fit neatly into ?male? and ?female? categories. Indeed, all of our brains seem to share a patchwork of forms; some that are more common in males, others that are more common in females, and some that are common to both. The findings could change how scientists study the brain and even how society defines gender.

For the purposes of this debate, it might be worth accepting how little we understand the brain and stop talking about "male and female brains". It's bullshit, and known to be bullshit for a while. It might also be good to stop pretending that humans are not what we obviously are, and that's more continuum than discrete when it comes to a lot of things. Most things perhaps.

Male and Female brains are nonsense, Male and Female hormones on the other hand.

 

[The Wooster]

Take your best guess and use pronoun.
Person asks you to use other pronoun.
Use that pronoun if you want to be polite.

Literally that fuckin' easy.

 

[Rosiv]

Spoiler

No, there is research being done in the field of sex and biology. Anything primarily related to biology is sex, the term "gender" refers specifically to the social dimensions of sex.

Neurobiological research into differences between men and women is still sexual difference research, because it deals with anatomical/biological differences between men and women. Research into women's shoe buying habits would be gender research, because it deals with social differences between men and women.

Maintaining the distinction is a useful heuristic tool (even if it is flawed in purely epistemological terms) because it helps us to spot when a conclusion does not match the methodology used to produce it. If someone is researching women's shoe buying habits and then claiming to have discovered neurological differences between men and women, something is very wrong there.

It just seems too big of a claim to say " this is solely in this domain" for any field really. Why be exclusionary?, if it turns to be a area that no longer wants to be questioned, people will just stop funding or doing the research. Until then to total discredit them seems a bit unfair. Yes I know research has to stand on its results(and popularity), but is that not for the peer review process to decide how much quaility ones study has, and not you or I? Although maybe more so you given your academic background.

People are doing the research, and I meant research on gender being influenced by biology, not sex, using your terms I guess. I couldn't find the articles or talk I watched so I can't cite, sorry.