Poll: Gender recognition offence

[Terminal Blue]

It just seems too big of a claim to say " this is solely in this domain" for any field really. Why be exclusionary?

Well, when it's relevant you don't have to be "exclusionary", but then that wouldn't just mean countenancing the possibility that "gender" is biological, but also the much more coherent possibility that "sex" is social.

Bodies are bodies, but the classification system that makes bodies "male" or "female" is the creation of a purely human field of medical practice. The bodies themselves do not autonomously and independently generate the logic of binary sex, it is imposed upon them through the practices through which we train medical professionals (and ourselves) to interpret those bodies. If we wished, if we arbitrarily chose different priorities on which to classify bodies, if we arbitrarily chose a completely different set of physical differences which "mattered" and ignored those which "matter" now, we could do things very differently.. The bodies would not care, no system of classification will have the slightest impact on them.

This is why the sex/gender distinction is epistemologically flawed, not because we have failed to consider the possibility that "gender" is biological (indeed, that was the original assumption, we have very much clawed the category of gender from the emerging realization that almost all human behaviour is not biologically determined) but because we have, until very recently, failed to consider the possibility that sex is social.

Again, though, outside of epistemology and ontology, the sex/gender distinction is a useful tool. It is nothing more than that, but it is useful. It's also not in any way exclusionary, since it allows for migration between the two categories. If someone did genuinely discover evidence that all men are "hardwired" to like football and beer, that there is some actual anatomical feature of men's neurology which makes that the case (the "football gland" and the "beer ganglion") then that would become a sexual difference between men and women. Again though, what we couldn't do is to infer that because many men appear (sociologically) to like beer and football the "football gland" and "beer ganglion" must exist. You can see why that is logically unsound, right?

That deliberate sliding between the social and the natural in order to make something easier to "prove" than it actually is remains a problem in sexual difference research to this day, and it's one which the sex/gender distinction rather handily allows us to solve.

 

[Dragonbums]

Despite what tumblr might tell you, it's highly unreasonable the first time around to know if the person your addressing goes by different pronouns. The people getting pissed off about it are unreasonable and looking for a soapbox to rake in the thousands of notes anyway.
However if they explicitly tell you that they want to be referred to by 'X' pronoun, than it's hardly any effort on your part to refer to them by those pronouns.

 

[Akjosch]

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?

No, I just don't see how those are connected, for the reasons outlined.

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)?

Guess. If you guess wrongly and they care enough, they'll correct you. Accept the correction and move on.

(Biological) sex isn't and never was binary, by the way. To date, besides the XX-female and XY-male sexes (which the vast majority of humans belong to, in roughly equal amounts), we know of a bunch of other sexes in humans. Some examples:

"XY-female", Swyer syndrome. Essentially a failure of producing testosterone during foetal development. Five known subtypes.

"X-female", Turner syndrome. Completely or mostly missing a second X-chromosome. About 1 in 8000 births.

X/XY mosaics (mixed gonadal dysgenesis). Mostly appearing outwardly male, but can run the gamut. Similar to many chimeric people, can live their lives without ever knowing they are genetically atypical.

"XXY-male", Klinefelter syndrome. Outwardly usually not recognisable as atypical. Most common non-binary sex type, occurring in about 1 in 1500 live births.

"XXX-female", Triple X syndrome. Again, most of the time not distinguishable from a "typical" XX-female to the naked eye. About 1 in 2000 live births.

"XYY-male", again not really distinguishable from "normal" males. About 1 in 2000 live births.

 

[Rosiv]

Spoiler

It just seems too big of a claim to say " this is solely in this domain" for any field really. Why be exclusionary?

Well, when it's relevant you don't have to be "exclusionary", but then that wouldn't just mean countenancing the possibility that "gender" is biological, but also the much more coherent possibility that "sex" is social.

Bodies are bodies, but the classification system that makes bodies "male" or "female" is the creation of a purely human field of medical practice. The bodies themselves do not autonomously and independently generate the logic of binary sex, it is imposed upon them through the practices through which we train medical professionals (and ourselves) to interpret those bodies. If we wished, if we arbitrarily chose different priorities on which to classify bodies, if we arbitrarily chose a completely different set of physical differences which "mattered" and ignored those which "matter" now, we could do things very differently.. The bodies would not care, no system of classification will have the slightest impact on them.

This is why the sex/gender distinction is epistemologically flawed, not because we have failed to consider the possibility that "gender" is biological (indeed, that was the original assumption, we have very much clawed the category of gender from the emerging realization that almost all human behaviour is not biologically determined) but because we have, until very recently, failed to consider the possibility that sex is social.

Again, though, outside of epistemology and ontology, the sex/gender distinction is a useful tool. It is nothing more than that, but it is useful. It's also not in any way exclusionary, since it allows for migration between the two categories. If someone did genuinely discover evidence that all men are "hardwired" to like football and beer, that there is some actual anatomical feature of men's neurology which makes that the case (the "football gland" and the "beer ganglion") then that would become a sexual difference between men and women. Again though, what we couldn't do is to infer that because many men appear (sociologically) to like beer and football the "football gland" and "beer ganglion" must exist. You can see why that is logically unsound, right?

That deliberate sliding between the social and the natural in order to make something easier to "prove" than it actually is remains a problem in sexual difference research to this day, and it's one which the sex/gender distinction rather handily allows us to solve.

Well, when it's relevant you don't have to be "exclusionary", but then that wouldn't just mean countenancing the possibility that "gender" is biological, but also the much more coherent possibility that "sex" is social.

This was the only part I understood enough to be honest, although what determines when something is relevant? I can understand the notion that either gender can be biological influcenced or sex can be socially influenced, and I agree. Both make sense to me, we just have less "good" or research for gender being biologicaly influened.

It's also not in any way exclusionary, since it allows for migration between the two categories.

I guess I am not arguing my point well, sorry. By exclusionary I meant more of what you spoke on above.Not having the possibility that there can be more than one cause of anything seems exclusionary to me, but if we consider that sex can be influenced by social standards, which is has been, why not assume biology can influence social effects?

Again though, what we couldn't do is to infer that because many men appear (sociologically) to like beer and football the "football gland" and "beer ganglion" must exist. You can see why that is logically unsound, right?

Well to be honest I don't read/view a lot of papers or research from biology regarding gender. Therefore I don't know if they make claims like the one above. As long as their claim was not as strong as the claim above, I would not see the "logical unsoundness" of it. But I am fuzzy on these philosophy terms, so what it means to be "unsound" is not very clear to me.

 

[celeritas]

A lot of people here claiming that people who 'misgender' others deliberately are being dicks. It's not true. One person's perception of reality doesn't supercede another's right to view it differently - it's strange that we've become accustomed to shaming people who refuse to view reality under certain terms.

While I fully support any individual's desire to express themselves however they chose and to be able do so without fear of stigmatisation, I think that current trends in transgender discussion are actually an obstacle to this - I think it's doing a lot of harm.

 

[happyninja42]

A lot of people here claiming that people who 'misgender' others deliberately are being dicks. It's not true. One person's perception of reality doesn't supercede another's right to view it differently - it's strange that we've become accustomed to shaming people who refuse to view reality under certain terms.

While I fully support any individual's desire to express themselves however they chose and to be able do so without fear of stigmatisation, I think that current trends in transgender discussion are actually an obstacle to this - I think it's doing a lot of harm.

Like most things in life, it depends on context. For example, if I refused to call you by your name that you were given, and instead decided to just call you "Pug Fucker" (not implying you actually engage in intercourse with small canines, just giving what I thought was a funny example), sure, by your statement, I am totally within my rights to do so. And you are correct, I am under no direct obligation to view reality as you do, and there really isn't anything anyone can do to stop me from doing so. To me, you are Pug Fucker....but I am also being a dick at the same time.

There are 2 scenarios that seem to most commonly pop up in this specific thread, and depending on which one is being referred to, the answer (I think) varies.

Scenario 1:
Trans person is mis-gendered by someone they have just met, and is a total stranger, and the trans persons outward gender identifiers might be contrary to their preferred gender, or a mix, and thus confusing at first glance In these examples, most people (from the posts I've read) feel that if there is a mistake made in the proper pronoun to be used, that it's likely not intentional, and is simply a mistake, one that can be easily corrected, and hopefully, no longer be an issue during the social interaction. And that if the trans person reacts in a strongly negative way, calling out the person for their mistake, making a scene about it, and other typical social outrage examples (not exclusive to trans people), then they are being unreasonable. Nothing wrong with them taking time to correct the issue, that's a different thing. But at least do it politely.

Scenario 2:
Trans person is mis-gendered by someone that is already aware of their gender preference, and refuses to acknowledge that preference, intentionally calling them by the incorrect gender. In these examples, again most people (from what I've seen), feel that the fault is with the person intentionally mis-representing the trans person. They are being rude on purpose, refusing to acknowledge the other person as they wish to be seen. This isn't a trans specific type of thing, and can happen in other forms of social interaction. Seeing a woman who is a stripper for example, as nothing but a sex object, and refusing to acknowledge her as anything else when talking to her, even after she asks you to do otherwise. That's just the first example that came to mind, but you get the idea.

You are absolutely correct that there isn't anything requiring the person to use the gender pronouns that the trans person prefers, but in doing so, they are acting rudely by social norms. Not just trans social norms, but social norms in general. Hence my Pug Fucker example. To refuse to speak to someone using the name/title/whatever that they prefer, is considered rude, pretty much anywhere.

 

[celeritas]

Scenario 2:
Trans person is mis-gendered by someone that is already aware of their gender preference, and refuses to acknowledge that preference, intentionally calling them by the incorrect gender. In these examples, again most people (from what I've seen), feel that the fault is with the person intentionally mis-representing the trans person. They are being rude on purpose, refusing to acknowledge the other person as they wish to be seen .

I think this is most telling part - depending on what you specifically mean by "acknowledge". If I'm perfectly happy to refer to someone as their preferred name: Sally, Rob, Ashley, whatever monika they go by, but that doesn't require me to accept that they have transitioned gender. In the case of M>F, I can still refer to that person by their preferred name while still maintaining that I consider them, by definition, a man.

My view isn't an insult to them, or a question of manners, simply my view on things (a view I can support and defend if they're interested in engaging me on the subject). Being an atheist who takes a very dim view of religion I can still wish my Muslim co-worker "Eid Mubarak" in the same manner.

Social pressures want to now reclassify people who refuse to accept certain views of reality as 'bigots' or simply 'dicks' - I don't think this is right. A reasoned argument is not automatically an insult simply because you don't like the conclusion.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

Social pressures want to now reclassify people who refuse to accept certain views of reality as 'bigots' or simply 'dicks' - I don't think this is right. A reasoned argument is not automatically an insult simply because you don't like the conclusion.

The problem being that a reasoned argument in this case is entirely about invalidating another person. I have never seen biological essentialist views successfully defended as anything but transphobic behavior, purely on the grounds of refusing another person.

If you want to talk "reality", if you misgender a trans woman in a public place, that is very likely to lead to said trans woman being violently attacked. You can't control the choices others make, or their actions, but you can control your own. To put it bluntly; being outed as a trans person puts said trans person in danger of being assaulted, period, misgendering a trans person is outing them. So for reality and the idea of respect, the only correct thing you can do is not expose a trans person that you know is trans to unnecessary danger. Refusal to use pronouns is generally seen as suspect language here, which I've always experienced as leading to that person eventually being misgendered. No matter what you believe to be correct, misgendering is still outing a trans person and outing a trans person against their will is never right.

Edit:

Also refusing to refer to someone by preferred gender pronouns is dehumanizing behavior. Add to that the mental anguish it causes the person you're refusing to correctly gender. It's just an awful thing for one person to intentionally do to another, no matter how you try to justify the behavior. It's always about intentional invalidation of a trans person as a person.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

I don't honestly believe anyone truly transgender could possibly be offended, the glory of being offended by anything and everything is a privilege of those who declare themselves transwhatever because it makes them a special little snowflake. Trans is the new emo which was the new goth ad nauseum.

Yeah, because people like to choose to be in a class that puts them at a far higher risk of being assaulted, raped, and murdered. You know because people like having that dark gremlin in their head, called gender dysphoria, which constantly assaults ones psyche, until transition. Then gender dysphoria will still pop up and ruin your day. Sure people like to go through that so they can then get verbally assaulted by people actively refuse to understand. This exact same thing was said about people choosing to be gay, it was just as much bullshit there as it is here.

 

[happyninja42]

My view isn't an insult to them, or a question of manners, simply my view on things (a view I can support and defend if they're interested in engaging me on the subject). Being an atheist who takes a very dim view of religion I can still wish my Muslim co-worker "Eid Mubarak" in the same manner.

Except these aren't proper comparisons. To use your atheist/religious example, deciding to call a trans person by the other gender pronoun, isn't like you using an Islamic phrase to your Muslim friend. It's like going up to him and saying "Merry Christmas", knowing fully well he doesn't follow that tradition, after he specifically asked you "Please don't wish me Merry Christmas, you know that's not my faith." It's an intentional disregard of their wishes on something that is in fact, a fairly minor issue for you.

In fact, your religious example is a perfect example of how to actually speak to a trans. You might not internally agree with her identifying as a she, and in your head, you think "Nope, you're a dude" but you would still say "She, and maam" when talking to her. Because that's exactly what you just described with your Muslim friend. You don't agree with his worldview, but you were still courteous enough to use the terms that he likes. If someone decided to call you a bigot for thinking that, I would disagree with them. You are free to disagree with their opinion on the matter, but that doesn't mean you have to be an ass about it. If you behave in a way that is respectful to their life and how they wish to live it, then think whatever you want.

Social pressures want to now reclassify people who refuse to accept certain views of reality as 'bigots' or simply 'dicks' - I don't think this is right. A reasoned argument is not automatically an insult simply because you don't like the conclusion.

You are correct, a reasoned argument is not automatically an insult. But "please refer to me as Ms. Jones, not Mr. Jones" isn't a "reasoned argument" it's a personal request from one person to another to be identified in the way they prefer. It's no different from any other social request "Actually it's Doctor Jones, not Mr. Jones" for example. Or "Senator Fluffykins, not Mr. Fluffykins" for another. There isn't anything to "debate" in that social interaction. There is speaking to the other party in a way they wish, or not. One choice is polite, the other isn't.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

I don't honestly believe anyone truly transgender could possibly be offended, the glory of being offended by anything and everything is a privilege of those who declare themselves transwhatever because it makes them a special little snowflake. Trans is the new emo which was the new goth ad nauseum.

Yeah, because people like to choose to be in a class that puts them at a far higher risk of being assaulted, raped, and murdered. You know because people like having that dark gremlin in their head, called gender dysphoria, which constantly assaults ones psyche, until transition. Then gender dysphoria will still pop up and ruin your day. Sure people like to go through that so they can then get verbally assaulted by people actively refuse to understand. This exact same thing was said about people choosing to be gay, it was just as much bullshit there as it is here.

Gosh I'm sorry you're right. Wow but it sure gives you a lot to talk about doesn't it?

If by a lot to talk about, you mean near consistent invasions of my anatomy, when it's none of their business. Something cis people never have to deal with. Refusing to use preferred pronouns if just for the safety of not being outed provides just makes everything worse. Because being misgendered sucks, being outed against one's will really sucks, especially when one "passes". The best I can hope for after being outed is to get some really awful looks, have complete stranger start treating me really weird, if not shunning children away like I'm a leper. That's the best, the worst I've ever gotten are nasty comments, I'm extremely lucky because I've never been assaulted physically for being trans. So yeah, trans folk get mad and offended when you misgender us. It ruins our whole day inside and out.

 

[celeritas]

The problem being that a reasoned argument in this case is entirely about invalidating another person. I have never seen biological essentialist views successfully defended as anything but transphobic behavior, purely on the grounds of refusing another person.

I don't have the power to validate or invalidate another person - nor should it be encumbent upon me to offer that validation. Their status as a man or woman for me is dependent solely on biology - not because I'm a pedant, but because I don't believe people should be defined by the circumstances of their birth. Being a 'man' or a 'woman' shouldn't be an impediment to self expression (though it often is, for both men and women). Implying that you can't be 'yourself' because of your gender is anathama to this belief and by transitioning your actually reinforcing those stereotypes, not challenging them. I can't support that.

If you want to talk "reality", if you misgender a trans woman in a public place, that is very likely to lead to said trans woman being violently attacked.

This isn't an axiom and even if it was it's not a rational argument - it's emotional blackmail, an appeal to terrible consequences should I refuse to do as I'm asked. It denies an individual their independence of thought or expression through duress. It is, at base, a form of psychological bullying.

Edit:

Also refusing to refer to someone by preferred gender pronouns is dehumanizing behavior. Add to that the mental anguish it causes the person you're refusing to correctly gender. It's just an awful thing for one person to intentionally do to another, no matter how you try to justify the behavior. It's always about intentional invalidation of a trans person as a person.

Again, I don't have the power to validate on invalidate other human beings. This reliance on external validation is at odds with the eternal message of empowerment which is self acceptance. Saying, in the words of Lady Gaga, "I'm born this way!". Is the trans message really "I was born wrong, but don't worry I'm fixed now - do you approve?"

And again, this is just an appeal to consequences: you're trying to make out that I'm a terrible human being for holding to a view point of my own; for maintaining that biology is, while boring, objectively immutable and that the real goal should be about changing society's outdated view of gender and not forcing people to undergo painful, expensive and life-changing surgery in order to conform to it.

One of these solutions has lasting, pratical benefits which help everyone (by empowering everyone to feel free in their personal expression), the other helps a small minority, in the short term to better fit into a binary system that is niether workable nor humane.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

I don't have the power to validate or invalidate another person - nor should it be encumbent upon me to offer that validation. Their status as a man or woman for me is dependent solely on biology - not because I'm a pedant, but because I don't believe people should be defined by the circumstances of their birth. Being a 'man' or a 'woman' shouldn't be an impediment to self expression (though it often is, for both men and women). Implying that you can't be 'yourself' because of your gender is anathama to this belief and by transitioning your actually reinforcing those stereotypes, not challenging them. I can't support that.

Except you do have the power to validate and invalidate others, people do it all the time. The biology question is entirely a false narrative used exclusively invalidate people who do not conform to gender norms, it's never used anyway. It's not implying I can't be myself because my gender as the primary issue, it's that gender and sex phenotype are not the same thing. You mention emotional blackmail, but use it first against me with a guilt trip about transitioning. The fact of the matter is, gender needs to be biologically set in stone for the stereotypes to exist as they do in the first place.

This isn't an axiom and even if it was it's not a rational argument - it's emotional blackmail, an appeal to terrible consequences should I refuse to do as I'm asked. It denies an individual their independence of thought or expression through duress. It is, at base, a form of psychological bullying.

Which paradoxically is exactly what misgendering someone is in the first place, the problem is that it can trigger physical concequences, due to carelessness and callousness. Still misgendering a person intentionally is psychological bullying, it's one of the most common causes linked to trans suicides. Two wrongs don't make a right here, especially when the first wrong is something so easily avoided.

Again, I don't have the power to validate on invalidate other human beings. This reliance on external validation is at odds with the eternal message of empowerment which is self acceptance. Saying, in the words of Lady Gaga, "I'm born this way!". Is the trans message really "I was born wrong, but don't worry I'm fixed now - do you approve?"

Except that whole line of thought isn't realistic. People validate and invalidate each other on a daily basis. Bullying for example is heavily based on invalidating a person in some way. Also you seem to not understand what gender dysphoria is, how it works. It's not something that goes away, it's not a switch a trans person flips, it's not a choice, it's a mental mechanism where the brain says: "My body is wrong!" Transition is the only treatment that is known to work, you're basically demanding we go back to attempting to force trans folk to live as their birth sexes. Which is probably the other most common cause of trans suicides.

And again, this is just an appeal to consequences: you're trying to make out that I'm a terrible human being for holding to a view point of my own; for maintaining that biology is, while boring, objectively immutable and that the real goal should be about changing society's outdated view of gender and not forcing people to undergo painful, expensive and life-changing surgery in order to conform to it.

I'm not making you out to be a terrible person, my objective here is try to get you to understand gender dysphoria, which is caused by a biological system, the brain. The goal you're supporting here isn't about biology, or society, it's basically the same line as trans exclusionary radical feminists, which demands abolition of gender, but no answer on how to reach that goal. No trans person is ever forced to under go any gender reassignment surgery, not a single one, it's a self empowering choice used to treat gender dysphoria, and it works.

One of these solutions has lasting, pratical benefits which help everyone (by empowering everyone to feel free in their personal expression), the other helps a small minority, in the short term to better fit into a binary system that is niether workable nor humane.

That's the classic trans exclusionary radical feminist line right there. Calling the issue with the binary, disregarding all of the other biological factors because they're inconvenient to a narrative. The problem is that gender dysphoria does exist and it's a biological going on within a trans person. One of the "solutions" is really vague talk about abolishing gender that really doesn't make any sense, or presents an actual solution period. The other solution, transition, is generally what allows a trans person to live in their own body and function like other people. It's a solution to a problem suffered by a minority, forcing people to live with physical parts they cannot stand is not a humane, or a workable solution, because it leads to only one other option, eventual suicide for the trans person.

Edit:

When it comes to trans exclusionary radical feminism as a subject, it inherently supports the binary by attempting to enforce biological sex phenotypes. There is nothing there that changes, it stratifies the binary in stone. Also such ideology attempts to limit all self expression, especially in regards to gender, by stratifying the biological aspects. Really when it comes down to that trans exclusionary radical feminism isn't actually radical and it's a flying leap backwards, by confining people's gender expression and roles to biology.

 

[omega 616]

I was actually reading about this yesterday and all it does is wind me up.

I am 100% behind the whole be who you want to be, you want to change gender, cross dress or you are gay, bi or whatever flavour of ice cream you identify with then by all means I cannot find any reason to have any problem with you!

HOWEVER! If you start giving me shit for not for not using the correct pronoun, I will refer to you as something you REALLY wont like. I get the very strong feeling some (very much a minority) want to be super special snowflakes, he and she just isn't good enough they want "ey," "em," "eir," "eirs," and "eirself", or "zie," "zim," "zir," "zirs," and "zirself".

If you're phsyically a dude but wearing a dress and have long hair with chicken fillets in your bra, I'm referring to you as a she! That's not to hate on the people, it's to hate on the inanity! "I'm gender fluid" then dress and appear whatever gender you feel like!

I want to be inclusive but I can't shake the special snowflake feeling, if that makes me an asshole so be it but I'd rather be an honest asshole than a dishonest, two faced "nice guy"!

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

I am 100% behind the whole be who you want to be, you want to change gender, cross dress or you are gay, bi or whatever flavour of ice cream you identify with then by all means I cannot find any reason to have any problem with you!

HOWEVER! If you start giving me shit for not for not using the correct pronoun, I will refer to you as something you REALLY wont like. I get the very strong feeling some (very much a minority) want to be super special snowflakes, he and she just isn't good enough they want "ey," "em," "eir," "eirs," and "eirself", or "zie," "zim," "zir," "zirs," and "zirself".

Well that's a good starting point for sure.

For the more unusual pronouns, some people just don't think they fit, it's not as much special snowflake, it's that they feel that strictly male and female pronouns don't work for them.

Also by giving you shit, do you mean if someone just snaps at you, or if they go off on a tirade? Because the former could just mean you're the person who happened to poke that sore one too times that particular day, the latter is of course the person being a total asshole about it. In the former case I mean someone who just spent all day getting misgendered might have a short fuse on the subject, but anyone reasonable will apologize for going off on you for your having made an innocent mistake.

If you're phsyically a dude but wearing a dress and have long hair with chicken fillets in your bra, I'm referring to you as a she! That's not to hate on the people, it's to hate on the inanity! "I'm gender fluid" then dress and appear whatever gender you feel like!

I want to be inclusive but I can't shake the special snowflake feeling, if that makes me an asshole so be it but I'd rather be an honest asshole than a dishonest, two faced "nice guy"!

That first line there... *shudders* That can't be sanitary...

Anyways gender fluid people generally present as the gender that they feel matches how they feel at the time. Gender neutral and agender folk are harder to read, especially if they're really androgynous. Although the ones I know seem to think it's all good fun to watch someone struggle to guess their gender.

Well you want to be inclusive, even if you have the "special snowflake" feeling, that's a lot better than people who just shout; "special snowflake tumblirna!" Granted I think the "special snowflake" types tend to be a very vocal and extra outrage prone minority of the larger trans community.

 

[omega 616]

I am 100% behind the whole be who you want to be, you want to change gender, cross dress or you are gay, bi or whatever flavour of ice cream you identify with then by all means I cannot find any reason to have any problem with you!

HOWEVER! If you start giving me shit for not for not using the correct pronoun, I will refer to you as something you REALLY wont like. I get the very strong feeling some (very much a minority) want to be super special snowflakes, he and she just isn't good enough they want "ey," "em," "eir," "eirs," and "eirself", or "zie," "zim," "zir," "zirs," and "zirself".

Well that's a good starting point for sure.

For the more unusual pronouns, some people just don't think they fit, it's not as much special snowflake, it's that they feel that strictly male and female pronouns don't work for them.

Also by giving you shit, do you mean if someone just snaps at you, or if they go off on a tirade? Because the former could just mean you're the person who happened to poke that sore one too times that particular day, the latter is of course the person being a total asshole about it. In the former case I mean someone who just spent all day getting misgendered might have a short fuse on the subject, but anyone reasonable will apologize for going off on you for your having made an innocent mistake.

If you're phsyically a dude but wearing a dress and have long hair with chicken fillets in your bra, I'm referring to you as a she! That's not to hate on the people, it's to hate on the inanity! "I'm gender fluid" then dress and appear whatever gender you feel like!

I want to be inclusive but I can't shake the special snowflake feeling, if that makes me an asshole so be it but I'd rather be an honest asshole than a dishonest, two faced "nice guy"!

That first line there... *shudders* That can't be sanitary...

Anyways gender fluid people generally present as the gender that they feel matches how they feel at the time. Gender neutral and agender folk are harder to read, especially if they're really androgynous. Although the ones I know seem to think it's all good fun to watch someone struggle to guess their gender.

Well you want to be inclusive, even if you have the "special snowflake" feeling, that's a lot better than people who just shout; "special snowflake tumblirna!" Granted I think the "special snowflake" types tend to be a very vocal and extra outrage prone minority of the larger trans community.

Except it wont be an innocent mistake. I will refer to people as male or female, dress how you want to be referred to ... dress as a guy and you're getting him and he, dress as a lady and you're getting she and her, nothing else to it. If you want one of these made up words to be applied to you then you're not going to like me 'cos I'm not going to utter them.

I get that some people do genuinely have these feelings, they have to ... I believe every possible permutation of the human psyche exists BUT I know 1 person who has a very desperate need to be accepted by everybody and is VERY easily influenced (I believe it's 'cos he was adopted) ... he has gone from imitating a hetero player who didn't smoke, to a gay introvert who smokes, to wanting to be a woman in the space of a year! So, I think a percentage of people are the special snowflakes, are the vocal ones, who are also the ones to fly off the handle easily 'cos they are the impersonators.

 

[JimB]

A lot of people here claiming that people who 'misgender' others deliberately are being dicks. It's not true. One person's perception of reality doesn't supercede another's right to view it differently - it's strange that we've become accustomed to shaming people who refuse to view reality under certain terms.

I feel it's hypocritical how often this kind of argument is assumed to apply only to one side of a conversation. If you, celeritas, get to declare that you have a right to declare a particular vision of reality and use it to refer to another person in insulting terms, then why do I not get to declare that I have a particular vision of reality (i.e., that choosing to ignore a person's identity in favor of declaring you know better who that person is is, in fact, a dick move) and refer to you by insulting terminology (i.e., calling you a dick)? These kinds of arguments read very much as if you want to argue that since reality is subjective, we must respect your subjective views, but you are exempt from respecting any other person's subjective views.

Sauce for the goose. If it's okay to label a transgender person by an identity they deny, then it's okay to label that first person by an identity he probably denies too; and as KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime points out regarding the relative dangers of these labels being applied (being physically assaulted versus be called a name), I don't feel that the guy getting called a dick has much right to complain.