Poll: Gender recognition offence

[cthulhuspawn82]

It does get confusing. The two main suggestions are to call them what they are and to call them what they want to be. In the case of a transgender person, those are two different things. That's what makes them transgender in the first place.

 

[Mikeybb]

Not to mention it comes off as the mild inconvenience of courtesy being somehow a huge affront.

Hey, didn't we just have this conversation?

We have this conversation every 25 minutes on these forums, now.

Yes. Yes we do.

Or at least daily. But...there are new people choosing to enter into the discussion from time to time who haven't learned yet.

Courtesy, but on the internet?
That just sounds... weird.
Like a chilli and chutney sandwich.
Eh, maybe it'll work out.

 

[Politrukk]

I find it odd people here assume I was misgendering this person on purpose, even after I explicitly stated that was not my intention, I was just taken aback by the strong worded reply and harassment that followed.

 

[Politrukk]

If you look like a woman and you snap at the sound of someone even considering that you are indeed a woman? and then demanding respect afterwards? I don't get it.

It's called "people have bad days and aren't perfectly rational robots".

And everybody deserves a baseline level of respect.

I was giving them that, read my edit and last post, I'm actually starting to take offence to this pre-contrived notion of me having meant to insult them, it was not the case.

And actually it's proving my point now that there's some inherent offence that this person took and now people here are taking to an honest mistake.

 

[Skatologist]

Someone wants to be known as non-binary? No thanks, I'm not putting up with that.

Can you please explain what exactly is such a burden about referring to a person the way they ask you to refer to them? What specific effort does it cost you?

Because science doesn't support the idea of non-binary genders.

Science also doesn't really contradict it like you're implying too.

Also quick observation, if this is what your litmus is, I do wonder what you think of gay or bisexual people and other various sexual orientations.

How many sexual orientations do you believe there are? 2? 3? Or would you humor the potential of sexual orientation at least being as complicated and intricate as a spectrum?

At most, you could possibly argue there are three.

I'd like to know why you'd think this. I'm all ears.

And as a man of science, I don't support anything that directly contradicts it.

How would having recognizing more than 2 genders contradict science? I mean, psychological associations are already acknowledging that there aren't just trans men and trans women under the gender dysphoria/trans umbrella, but other forms of gender identity as well. And I haven't seen anything from a neurological/psychological institution saying "Nope! We've concluded for now and eternity that there are only 2 genders found in humans!"

Plus, (And this is somewhat debatable) it's possible non-binaryism and transgenderism are just a mis-identified mental illnesses, and as long as that possibility exists, I don't want to possibly be complicit in enabling someones mental illness.

Again, I'd like you to replace this with argument with sexual orientations that aren't heterosexual and see if you still agree.

Also "enabling their mental illnesses" is what actually is the prescribed thing to do for people with gender dysphoria.

 

[The_Darkness]

The only thing that bothers me about they/them is that it also implies plural.

My only issue with the They/They're "pronouns" is plurals.
I don't like saying "They are doing xyz" if it's one person.
And "They is doing xyz" just feels dirty in a purely grammatical manner.

I really don't get this complaint. We already use 'they' as a non-gendered singular pronoun in circumstances where the relevant gender is unknown. For example:

"The thief crept past three guard rotations to steal that ruby. Whoever they are, they're good."

'It' isn't right in this context, since 'it' is generally used to refer to objects, not people. 'He/She' wouldn't work either, since whichever you use, you're assuming a gender for this hypothetical thief of unknown gender. So we use a singular 'they' here, in this context. Or does that example sentence also feel uncomfortable to you?

And if 'they' doesn't feel uncomfortable in my above example, why does it feel uncomfortable to use 'they' as a singular pronoun for someone who wants to be identified as 'they'?

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

I find it odd people here assume I was misgendering this person on purpose, even after I explicitly stated that was not my intention, I was just taken aback by the strong worded reply and harassment that followed.

And don't forget you also said: "Stuff like this absolutely drives me away from accepting these kind of people as normal."

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

I find it odd people here assume I was misgendering this person on purpose, even after I explicitly stated that was not my intention, I was just taken aback by the strong worded reply and harassment that followed.

Who even said you did it on purpose? Can you quote someone saying that because it seems to me like you're reading into things that aren't there.

 

[Something Amyss]

And coming in on the hot tag....

Because science doesn't support the idea of non-binary genders.

Science actually does support the notion, largely because most of the fields that deal with human biology accept that things do not fit into the neat little boxes where we try and force them.

Now, does "science" support the notion explicitly? There's limited study, so technically no. We're seeing more medical papers on the concept, however, which are a beginning to that exact support. You can say

Transgenderism was classified as a mental illness and they changed their minds. Wanna know why? THEY STUDIED AND LEARNED BETTER!!!

"Transgenderism" is on a euphemism treadmill and they change the terms in ways that are largely irrelevant. Calling it a medical disorder is now not acceptable not because it's not a disorder, but because of a fear of stigma. In fact, many changes of the classification of gender identity are due more to the sort of political correctness you seem to hate than any medical foundation. The reality is that treatment of trans individuals was changing even as it was called a mental disorder, and would have continued to doso in all probability.

Call it a mental disorder, a birth defect, or a nargle. This isn't about "learning better," it's about not offending.

And for the record, I vote "nargle" because then Luna will come looking for me.

Also "enabling their mental illnesses" is what actually is the prescribed thing to do for people with gender dysphoria.

And, interestingly enough, is not limited strictly to transsexuals. Kinda knocks the argument into the ground, don't it?

And actually it's proving my point now that there's some inherent offence that this person took and now people here are taking to an honest mistake.

Serious question:

In this thread you've reacted poorly to criticism, accused people of going for your throat and misrepresented others. Up to and including stating someone(s) accused you of doing this on purpose. We can't see this other person's conduct, but we can see yours and it paints a picture that leads me to believe it's more likely you took offense.

Also, I should point out that while you claim to support trans people, it was the same day you made this thread that you used "cis" as a way to deride the problems of modern feminism. Not to mention you withhold your support based on the condition they not offend you.

None of this makes me particularly prone to believe you are the injured party. Do you really think it paints you as such?

 

[F-I-D-O]

The only thing that bothers me about they/them is that it also implies plural.

My only issue with the They/They're "pronouns" is plurals.
I don't like saying "They are doing xyz" if it's one person.
And "They is doing xyz" just feels dirty in a purely grammatical manner.

I really don't get this complaint. We already use 'they' as a non-gendered singular pronoun in circumstances where the relevant gender is unknown. For example:

"The thief crept past three guard rotations to steal that ruby. Whoever they are, they're good."

'It' isn't right in this context, since 'it' is generally used to refer to objects, not people. 'He/She' wouldn't work either, since whichever you use, you're assuming a gender for this hypothetical thief of unknown gender. So we use a singular 'they' here, in this context. Or does that example sentence also feel uncomfortable to you?

And if 'they' doesn't feel uncomfortable in my above example, why does it feel uncomfortable to use 'they' as a singular pronoun for someone who wants to be identified as 'they'?

That example only has one acting person, so they has a clear connotation. Yes, it works, but the sentence is structured in such a way to avoid confusion from an unclear pronoun. That type of usage doesn't feel uncomfortable to me.
What does is when I mentally slip and say things like "They is" when I am explicitly referring to one person. My brain says one person - use is. Also, use the right pronoun - they. And then I slip up. As someone with difficulty speaking, it doesn't help. It's purely a mental block on my end, and I understand that. However, the topic was again asking about personal feelings on the matter.

Other example:
"Jim and Susie were talking. Then they went back to their room."
Who am I referring to?
With multiple acting parties, they becomes an unclear pronoun reference.
A clarification might be "Then Jim went back to their room" which still works and is technically correct, but is unclear if its proper pronoun usage or an error. It stands out more in writing, as it can be glossed over in speech.

As such, I rarely use "they" when referring to a singular person (more so with companies).
And as I've stated before, I don't go around "correcting" people's pronouns. If someone wants to be referred to with the "they" set, I'll do that. However, knowing that I have a tendency to mess that up at some point and getting pronouns wrong around someone you know can be incredibly rude, I make more of a conscious effort to use names. I've never heard of anyone complaining because I used their name too much.
I have a friend who uses "it" as the preferred pronoun. I tend to avoid referring to that pronoun around people who don't know, as someone not aware of its identity could view that usage as insulting. So I use names, because it just makes social events less awkward, and maintains clarity while respecting the person's decision.

(Edited for slight clarifications)

 

[Something Amyss]

With multiple acting parties, they becomes an unclear pronoun reference.

The same is true if it's Adam and Steve. "he then went back to his room" could mean either of them (Though admittedly, not both). Nobody seems to rail against this.

 

[F-I-D-O]

With multiple acting parties, they becomes an unclear pronoun reference.

The same is true if it's Adam and Steve. "he then went back to his room" could mean either of them (Though admittedly, not both). Nobody seems to rail against this.

I know I'm being contrarian here, but I actually do find that just as frustrating, and would immediately ask "Who?". I don't like unclear pronoun references regardless of implied gender, I was just focusing on "they" because I was trying to clarify my position.

Side story time: I had an English teacher for two years who read papers using what he called "the dumb grader." If there was any point where the pronouns or other forms of references/agreements were not EXPLICITLY clear he'd write "vague" on the paper and dock points. He'd do this regardless of context, as the singular sentence in question was vague. Because of that system, he also had a whole discussion on why people shouldn't just use "they" as the only pronoun when trying to refer to non-gendered actions, as it was unclear between one or more people. In his words, writing that only used they as a stand-in was dry and boring. Adding even a little characterization with names or more definite (for lack of a better word) pronouns made vague situations more concrete (at least with number). He pushed clarity over all else. He did admit that completely removing the usage of "they" for a singular non-gender defined person leaves no good replacement. As stated before, "it" has connotations that don't work unless you're writing about eldritch sample users.

 

[runic knight]

I think the op would be better served to reword their question, as it obviously has invited a lot of attack on their character for the way they worded the question. They deserved it though, they were totally asking for people to attack them as a person. /sarcasm

Stuff like this absolutely drives me away from accepting these kind of people as normal.

When he makes statements like that, suggesting how one person upsetting him is going to change how he acts towards a bunch of other people who have nothing to do with it, he rightly deserves to be called on it.

"Someone was mean to me so I'm not accepting any of those people!" is a rather awful stance. It suggests he thinks how they deserve to be treated depends completely on his personal feelings.

That is a fair point on the basis of it being illogical. Still, I think the topic would be far better served reworded instead of resulting in an inquisition of his personal views while largely ignoring it. Less political grandstanding, less attempts to shame and attack character, and ultimately, less bullshit to dig through distracting from the original question itself.

 

[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 ...

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

I think the op would be better served to reword their question, as it obviously has invited a lot of attack on their character for the way they worded the question. They deserved it though, they were totally asking for people to attack them as a person. /sarcasm

Stuff like this absolutely drives me away from accepting these kind of people as normal.

When he makes statements like that, suggesting how one person upsetting him is going to change how he acts towards a bunch of other people who have nothing to do with it, he rightly deserves to be called on it.

"Someone was mean to me so I'm not accepting any of those people!" is a rather awful stance. It suggests he thinks how they deserve to be treated depends completely on his personal feelings.

That is a fair point on the basis of it being illogical. Still, I think the topic would be far better served reworded instead of resulting in an inquisition of his personal views while largely ignoring it. Less political grandstanding, less attempts to shame and attack character, and ultimately, less bullshit to dig through distracting from the original question itself.

Well the statement kind of colors perceptions of the original scenario presented, at least for me. And his reaction to it.

I don't think the question itself is particularly interesting anyways. I haven't seen any hint at an opinion that contradicts the simple "Nothing wrong, just correct it after." Except for some that get more political and veer from that topic into whether preferred pronouns should even be respected at all. If it weren't for the other elements I expect the topic would be mostly ignored. But the OP chose to make it broader than just that by what he chose to say in his post.

 

[JimB]

Oh hey, they fixed the links in quote alert mails. Neat.

Someone wants to be known as non-binary? No thanks, I'm not putting up with that.

Can you please explain what exactly is such a burden about referring to a person the way they ask you to refer to them? What specific effort does it cost you?

Because science doesn't support the idea of non-binary genders.

You are flatly wrong here, because you are treating the words "gender" and "sex" as if they're synonymous. They're not. In the fields we're talking about, "sex" is the term used to describe physical, reproductive characteristics, whereas "gender" refers to social constructs (so, for example, if you're talking about a woman having a vagina, you're talking about her sex, but if you're talking about the expectations placed upon her appearance, you're talking about gender). As a social construct, there is literally nothing stopping anyone from inventing as many genders as they want. Science has nothing to do with it, because science does not dictate; it only describes what it observes.

Plus (and this is somewhat debatable), it's possible non-binaryism and transgenderism are just mis-identified mental illnesses, and as long as that possibility exists, I don't want to possibly be complicit in enabling someone's mental illness.

That's a cop-out. If you are the man of science you claim to be, then you know one hundred percent certainty is effectively impossible, because the most a scientist can say is, "I have not yet seen the case that contradicts our belief, but it may yet exist;" meaning the possibility you demand be eliminated never can. Frankly, I think your application of the principle is hypocritical, because your denouncement of creationism could be responded to with exactly the same sentiment--"It's possible you don't know something that proves God made the universe in seven days, so as long as that possibility exists, I don't want to be complicit in enabling scientific propaganda"--so I think if you want to be considered honest, then the burden is on you to prove transgenderism is a disease by identifying its psychopathology or finding peer-reviewed and generally accepted studies that do so for you.

 

[Something Amyss]

I know I'm being contrarian here, but I actually do find that just as frustrating, and would immediately ask "Who?".

Then you seem to have solved this problem quite well, and as a bonus would be excellent at CinemaSins.

*ding*

 

[happyninja42]

With multiple acting parties, they becomes an unclear pronoun reference.

The same is true if it's Adam and Steve. "he then went back to his room" could mean either of them (Though admittedly, not both). Nobody seems to rail against this.

Ugh, Adam and Steve. I hate that phrase. xD I know you're using it for example purposes, but considering how many times I've actually heard some bible thumper around here use that phrase to promote some anti-gay agenda just really chaps my ass. "It says Adam and EVE, not Adam and Steve!" and then they act like they can do a mic drop moment and win the argument. Makes me want to suplex them off the ropes.

 

[Lightknight]

Ok, sure, they have the right to be mad, but you have no way of knowing someone's gender identity just by looking at them, so guessing wrong isn't something you can be blamed for. You didn't actually do anything wrong, and as such, you don't deserve to be yelled at or anything.

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.

With multiple acting parties, they becomes an unclear pronoun reference.

The same is true if it's Adam and Steve. "he then went back to his room" could mean either of them (Though admittedly, not both). Nobody seems to rail against this.

This is just an issue of ambiguous pronouns. It's improper English in these circumstances anyways. Were it Adam and Evette then no one would give a shit and proper English would have been employed.

 

[Something Amyss]

Ugh, Adam and Steve. I hate that phrase. xD I know you're using it for example purposes, but considering how many times I've actually heard some bible thumper around here use that phrase to promote some anti-gay agenda just really chaps my ass. "It says Adam and EVE, not Adam and Steve!" and then they act like they can do a mic drop moment and win the argument. Makes me want to suplex them off the ropes.

Yes, but that's exactly why it came to mind. XD