Poll: Gender recognition offence

[JimB]

Not what that quote says. The quote describes the difference between the way others perceive her and the way she perceives herself.

People probably saw her as a macho man because she acted like one. Yet she seems to think that changing her name and appearance will make everyone see her for who she is. In other words, as long as she's perceived as a man she couldn't be anything but macho.

I think your assertion requires unsupported assumptions, but whatever. I'm not going to keep arguing over Caitlyn Jenner's personal beliefs.

She didn't say she was non-binary or bisexual.

And she didn't say she wasn't. There are a lot of orientations being recognized, and they're difficult to grapple with as part of one's identity, so I am not willing to assume any more than the facts in evidence: Caitlyn Jenner is attracted to women. That is all she said, so I do not see the logic in excluding any other options.

Isn't a biologically male person who identifies himself as a woman wrong?

Wrong by what standard? I personally define right and wrong, correct and incorrect, with a heavy component of how much harm is done by a conclusion. Whom is being hurt by this biological man identifying as a woman? What is the specific nature of the harm done? So far as I'm aware, the trans person is helped by that identification (it helps to resolve her gender dysphoria), and the only people who are hurt are people who get offended on pedantic or didactic levels, which I simply do not care about. So no, that hypothetical woman calling herself a woman is not, by any estimation I place value in, wrong.

I'd start with the majority then.

I am not sure what you mean by "the standard of the majority." Are you talking about popular opinion? Because I am not interested in reducing complex, nuanced matters of science down to a popular vote, particularly when "the majority" are ignorant of the issue.

Anyway, regarding the rest of your points, wouldn't this be the case of oversensitivity? I've known people who were often (wrongly) thought of as gay or lesbian due to their mannerisms and character, most of them either didn't care or took it into their stride. They're fun people to be around.

"My friends are totally cool with being misgendered" is a fine anecdote and all, and I'm glad you enjoy their company, but your friends are not empowered to dictate behavior to the trans community. Nor are you by invoking their authority. There is no obligation to be cool with someone calling you something you're not.

As far as I can tell, a person who is deadset or insists on being referred to as a "he" or "she" (regardless of...its superficial gender? Ugh) by her peers is probably not a very nice person at all. I know I wouldn't want to be around such a person, nevermind be friends or joke around with...it? (Look I can't even refer to this imaginary person in this post.)

Yes, you could. You could say "they."

To put things in perspective, I'd preferred to be called by my first name, not my last, but it isn't that much of a deal if you call me by my last name either.

Okay. That is your standard to live by, and you're welcome to it. Why are you arguing against trans people being allowed to have their own standards to live by?

 

[9tailedflame]

First, i just want to be clear that it's not only trans people who are following steryotypes, but cis people as well. I 100% support anyone's decision to identify as they want, i just think that the notion of gender as a whole is a flawed one. Anyway, my point i guess is that there has to be some reasoning in why you identify the way you do, right? If there wasn't some reasoning behind why you identify as trans, you'd largely default to cis, since cis is regarded socially as the default, right? If you have reasoning for identifying as a woman, wouldn't that be influenced by what you perceive womanhood to be? After all, it's hard to identify as something if you have no perception of it, right? And wouldn't that perception of womanhood largely be based on stereotypes? What else could a perception of something so broad be based on?

I don't know you well enough to make any assumptions, but i would be interested as to why you identify as a woman. I hope you don't think i'm trying to be mean or aggressive about this, i'm really not, i'm just not sure how someone forms a concept of a gender without stereotypes, and i would actually legitimately appreciate some reasoning if there is any, you don't have to have any reason for identifying the way you do of course, but if there is any, it might help me get a better grasp on the subject in general.

Fair enough. I'll try to explain it as best I can, and hopefully I don't come off poorly in the process. Because I'm really not looking for a fight, I was just kind of confused as to this notion of stereotypes.

First off, I do feel like I should say that I speak for me only in terms of specifics. I can point to general things, or even to anecdotes from other trans people I know, but I'm the only person for which I can speak with authority on what they think and feel. There are other people who may or do not fit in with things I'm about to say, and that's fine. I don't even necessarily think they're wrong, but again, speaking for me.

Also, this may be a particularly weird POV, in part because while I am not a man, years of social conditioning have made me feel like calling myself a woman is encroaching on the "real" women.

Anyway, my point i guess is that there has to be some reasoning in why you identify the way you do, right?

The reasoning is that there exists a disconnect between my body and my sense of self. Since I recently kicked a hornet's nest about some related concepts, I'll try and avert bringing that into this thread by pointing out that I'm not really concerned with the precise mechanism that causes this. It exists, and that's enough.

Now, I suppose if you want to get super technical, any description of myself as a woman is tied to a social construct, because of the use of language. Thing is, I'm not even particularly interested in that. My physiology is male and whatever it is that makes me "me"--whether someone thinks it's my brain, my soul, my sense of identity or whatever else--says I should not be. Linguistically, we codify the body that I want/feel I should have/what have you as "female" or a "woman's" body (and, admittedly, somewhat idealised would be preferable, but not necessary). That is technically a social construct and stereotyping, but that's dicing things very fine. I'm more concerned with feeling right than specific pronouns and labels, but I admit that it is a signifier of social acceptance for those terms to be used, and damn if I didn't squee when a friend of 20 years called me "her" without any specific prompting. Well, outside of me saying I was trans.

There are certianly social elements. I would ideally like to fit within the social standards of Western beauty, in part because I crave normalcy. Also, because being trans, especially being identifiably so, puts a target on your head in our culture. But this is a very loose sense, and beyond the loosest sense, I don't know that I qualify.

The analogy that keeps coming to mind is being gay. Now, we have certain cultural ideas of what a gay person might do, what they might look like, etc. Even if you don't hold those ideals yourself, you probably have an idea of at least a few of them. A lot of people may be looked at as gay due to meeting these criteria socially (and we have a field day trying to decide if historical figures were gay), but if you're not someone with same-sex attractions, it doesn't really matter. Now, there may be overlap--many gays do meet some or all of these criteria. I would argue that this is more nurture than nature, and I would argue that with a lot of our ideas of gender roles as well. But a gay man is gay whether he meets any of those social criteria or not.

Personally, I do fit into some of the stereotypes, but I don't think that informs my gender identity any. In fact, a lot of those things post-date my awareness of being trans (though I didn't know the term, because I hadn't even entered kindergarten yet) and some may be informed by my desire to blend in with the "real" girls. It's actually interesting to me because I wonder if I'd still be me without associated programming that comes from being raised as a boy or not. I'm inclined to think I would have similar interests, though maybe not the same. My little brother loves to cook and sew and knit. While I was playing with Transformers, he was playing with She-Rah and had Rainbow Brite stuff. Like, I doubt you would consider him a girl. And as far as I know, he's the cisgender one in the family. I can't rule out he isn't also hiding, but for the time being I'm forced to go with "not a girl." He's also straight, as far as I know. But he is waaaaaaaaaaay more effeminate than me. See, this is the sort of thing that comes to mind when talking about gender and stereotypes. And, I mean, I don't think these things should be gendered in the first place: I don't give a crap if my brother fits into a world thats coded "girly" or "gay." I'm fine with him being true to himself and doing the things he likes (the irony, of course, is the fear that he won't feel the same). And it's not even like we're polar opposites--at Thanksgiving, his wife decided to point out how similar we are. And in some cases, that is true. But, I mean, like, if you were to look at our childhood toys and ask which one of us was the girl, I'm betting most people would point at him.

And that's when I pull this out:


(Sorry, I am taking you seriously, but the late hour is making me a little silly)

Anyway, I think I'm meandering a bit too much. It's after 3 AM where I am and I'm tired but I can't sleep because reasons.If any of this is unclear, feel free to let me know.

So, had I been born physiologically female, but no other differences existed in my personality? I'm pretty sure I'd still be the one who was more interested in the action and the giant stompy robots and such. My parents at the very least didn't try and force their son to be more of a boy.

So, what makes me trans? I feel dysphoria with the "maleness" of my body and wish to have that corrected. Actually, what I wish involves a time machine and Star Trek technology, but I'm a slightly realistic individual. So barring that, there are things like hormones and surgery which can make me feel normal. I don't really think someone needs to go that far, but this is what informs my sense of "womanhood." But I'm not even sure I'd consider that "womanhood." Closer to "Amysshood."

Does that mean I'm ambivalent to the social elements? Not really. I would like to be accepted in society, rather than being treated as some sick perverted freak, but I don't think that's what you mean. I call myself a woman because it's descriptive, rather than prescriptive. I dislike being called a man, and I dislike use of my birth name, but these are things associated with a condition that causes me no end of anxiety, depression, etc. I love it when people call me Amy and/or "she," because this signifies acceptance or at least a basic level of respect. And I don't think any of that's what you mean, but I'm still not exactly sure what you do mean.

One of the first things I told the friend I referenced previously was that I was still exactly the same person they were talking to two minutes before. From his frame of reference, this may be an exaggeration (after all, he has found out things he's said in the past are things I don't like), but I'm the exact person he's been friends with for a couple decades now.

It's just that 24 hours ago, he thought the "guy" who had his back in high school and went out drinking with him and played hours of video games and tabletop RPGs with him and was in his wedding party (and despite my apprehension about the title, would have been his "best man" had he asked) and thousands of other things was a man. And now he knows she isn't. A lot of my best friends are guys, largely because we share the same interests. A lot of my girl friends are tomboys, though masculine-coded interests aren't a requirement for me to like you. But they're the people I fell in with because of shared interest, which goes back to my point about how these social elements swing more masculine for me. I want to keep doing the things I do with the people I call friends. Just in a body that doesn't freak me out.

But again, I'm not sure if this meets your criteria or not. Perhaps, given this much information (provided the end result is coherent), you can give me a better idea of whether it does fit. I don't know. I feel I've answered to the best of my ability. Especially given it's now 4 AM and I'm a little loopy.

I'd also add, I guess as a followup, that I'm largely unconcerned with gender as a notion in terms of gender roles and societal perceptions. I have always been fairly nonconforming to any (overall trend of) gender stereotypes, and have always felt free to do my own thing. That thing often swings to our culture's idea of masculine, and that's fine. I'm fine with men liking girly things and women liking manly things or not as they see fit. And I'd rather living in a world where those preconceptions didn't exist (or at least, didn't rule us). And I'm pretty sure I'd still hang with the people who shared my interests.

I think that does answer my question. I really appreciate you taking the time to write all that up, and putting yourself out there, i really do, thank you. I think the general sense of dysphoria answers my question perfectly. I guess it's a bit odd to me, since i've never really had *that* much of a gender identity, i mean i identify as cis, but it's never struck me as a particularly meaningful part of my identity for me, it's entirely possible i'm just very odd in that respect, but it means it's sometimes a bit tough for me to grasp these things. I kinda feel bad for not having more to say, since you gave such a good response, but i don't really, so i guess i'll just say thanks again!

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

Oh come on, the lizard part is so obvious to prove false.

I don't care. If chocolate pickles thinks he's a lizard and wants me to call him a lizard, then I have no profit on calling him something else, except for whatever joy I can take in being a dick to him; and taking joy in being a dick is something I tend to be ashamed of.

Quite frankly I'd refuse because I find the notion absurd. I don't like playing along with nonsense like otherkin stuff. I wouldn't play along with exorcizing a house or being roped into saying prayers either. People can keep that kind of thing to themselves and those that believe without expecting me or others to participate.

Also I'll note my distaste for whoever tried to compare otherkin to trans people in the first place.

You think you're a fairy? Sure, any time pre-1990 they would have put you in an asylum but in the 90's to 00's we called it a workable disorder and now in the 10's it has turned into some sort of pedestal.

Oh stop sounding like a conservative radio show host. There's no pedestal for otherkin .

When people start about being angelkin, lizardfolk or boomkin for that matter they better fork over some proof and unless it is a WoW subscription we can suspect their insanity.

No, we can't. "Insanity" is a specific term with a specific definition: unable to be found guilty of a crime because of a mental disease or defect that prevents them from understanding the consequences of their actions. Likewise, as I already said in this thread, "mental disorder" is an equally strictly defined term, referring to someone at increased risk of pain, disability, or death because of a pattern of behavior. Otherkin are not crazy: They're just weird, and that's okay. It's okay to be weird. They're not hurting you, they're not hurting me, they're not hurting themselves. Let them be weird. Christ, dude, you act like everyone who thinks something about himself that you don't permit them to think is some kind of personal attack against you.

This is a forum, people use coloquial definitions.

 

[Politrukk]

Gender is not some kind of social construct.

The field of social sciences has been recognizing the difference between sex and gender for nearly forty-five years. If you know better than common, peer-reviewed consensus among a specific scientific discipline, then I invite you to tell us your credentials and show us your data.

By this Tumblr-BS, you should all acknowledge me as a lizard. What? I feel like one.

Sure, I'll call you a lizard if you want me to call you a lizard. Doesn't cost me anything to do; why wouldn't I? How's it hanging, my lizard? Are you a specific lizard, or just generically four-legged and reptilian?

Oh come on, the lizard part is so obvious to prove false.

That's why people ridicule otherkin above else.

you think you're a fairy? sure, any time pre 1990 they would have put you in an asylum but in the 90's to 00's we called it a workable disorder and now in the 10's it has turned into some sort of pedestal...

honestly gender yourself to space but when people start about being angelkin,lizardfolk or boomkin for that matter they better fork over some proof and unless it is a WoW subscription we can suspect their insanity.


Edit:

Unless you can show me some magic, I'm onboard if you have proof.

The entire otherkin comparison is used to invalidate the identities of trans folk, it's pretty typical trans erasure.

Anyways calling someone "insane" for wanting to identify as some kind of otherkin, it's not really even a mental disorder, at worst it's an over investment in personal fantasy. But I've never met these mythical otherkin who demand you call them a dragon, lizard, angel, fairy, and etc... Not in person, and not online. It comes off as a strawman, because the only contexts I see otherkin being in their personas is in art, fiction, and role play, I've never run into anyone who was belligerently attached to an otherkin persona in daily life. What's worse in this case is the armchair psychology applied to the otherkin community that's aimed at the strawman depiction, which is then used to shit on trans folk.

I know it is, but as a strawman, the entire concept by itself? I find that ridiculous.

And trust me it can easily be classified as a mental disorder as I've said, we used to be much easier in this.

When someone thinks they're jesus, we think they've gone mad, who knows maybe they really are jesus, I mean if Jesus came back to earth today (leaving the debate wether he existed at all for a moment) He'd be put into an institute with some severe mental disorders under his name.

If you are a human and you honestly truly think that you're a lizard I wouldn't say it's that much of a stretch....

I'm honestly wondering if the DSM IV/V does not have such a classification already.

However!

This discussion is for me not related to the entire "trans" thing, although that is where it comes from, just making that clear.


Edit:

I might have to make a new thread to adress this discussion and promote the disconnect as to there being no confusion.

 

[happyninja42]

snip

And only if you actually live up to those. That's where I get confused. Well, one of the places I get confused. I'm still not sure what conventions I'm reinforcing, but according to a good chunk of people, I am.

Anyway, what is "mascluine" or "feminine" also can vary in terms of time period.A couple of decades can make a lot of difference in terms of what's "masculine" or "feminine" or "gay" or "straight." I mean, this still can influence you in terms of trying to fit in and whatnot.

I know right? Just look at the 80's. Hair bands left and right, and they were "sexy masculine" gods of rock. Including Rob Halford. Who looks, in retrospect, like one of the "gayest" guys ever, but not only was considered a manly man of manliness, but also totally fooled decades worth of fans that he wasn't gay. Or well, fooled is a wrong term, implying an intentional deception, but even with his stage persona, nobody even considered he was gay until he declared it years later.

snip

It'd be better if people could like what they like without having to run it past committee. But yeah, that's actually kind of cool that you were unbothered by it. I was always rather acutely aware of what to avoid, because doing feminine things tended to get the shit kicked out of me. But more to the other point....

Well, I wouldn't say "unbothered" by it? I mean it's never comfortable to be the target of ridicule and bullying, but it just confused me more than anything. I mean they would make these declarations about me, and I would think. "...but I really love vaginas...like a lot. Like taking up 75% of my mental runtime as a teenager." So I just personally decided they didn't know what the fuck they were talking about, and ignored them for the most part. As to them not kicking the shit out of me, that would be due to a few reasons. 1. I'm 6ft 4in tall, and 2. Back then, was in really good shape, and I am a black belt in Tong Soo Do (South Korean martial arts). So most of them weren't inclined to try and mess with me physically, because I quite literally towered over most of them. They would mock me from a distance, because I was a fairly easy going guy, but they never would really try and get in my face. Mostly because I could kick their head off before they got that close. xD In fact, I did a friendly sparring match with one of them at a friends house, with protective gear and all, and he said that he'd never fought anyone that went at them so fiercely. Which is funny, because I was the most passive, defensive fighter in my class. But compared to him, I was apparently Bruce Lee or something. xD

snipperoony!

It's actually amazing how little thought people seem to put into why they're reacting as they do. Like the natural order has been upset by a little boy not knowing his place in the world. Thank god all those good people are around to clutch at pearls and steer the child to what boys actually want. Crisis averted. I mean, this is more or less related to gender norms/gender roles, etc.

Your particular take is an interesting one, though. XD Never got the "girls/boys are icky" thing, either.

If my parents only knew the torrid love affairs and orgies my action figures got up to as a kid! xD But yeah, it kind of surprises me, and in another way doesn't. I'm starting to see some of it indirectly now, with one of my god-daughters (even though I'm an atheist, but hey, the title sticks, and it amuses me xD). Her mother told me about how she wanted to do martial arts last year, but then suddenly lost interest. This bothered me, because I LOVED martial arts as a kid. It was in fact, the one physical sport that I could truly enjoy. The training and discipline were immense help to me as a kid, to deal with a lot of issues in my life. So I was all for helping her learn some self defense. Then her mom said that some of the kids in her school were making fun of her, saying she was "acting like a boy", so she stopped showing interest in it. Apparently she liked several boy things, like the Ninja Turtles, and karate. So, due to social pressures, she is showing less interest in those things. Which bothers me a lot, as well as her mom. We're trying to get her interested in martial arts again. Maybe I need to find some girl friendly martial arts shows to show her. Oooh! Like Avatar: the Last Airbender series. Yeah, *ponders, stroking chin like a villain* yesssss, excellent. Need to find some other examples of badass girl fighters I think, to show her that it's not just boys that can kick ass.

 

[GalanDun]

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.

When did "gender" become a separate word from "sex?" My high-school and college biology courses never said anything about them being two different works.
When you refer to expectations placed upon a woman's appearance, you're referring to either secondary sexual characteristics, or to gender-roles and gender-norms, not gender in and of itself.
Here's a video that gives a general explanation of how gender/sex is linked to biology. It's a response to someone else's video, but it works all the same: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udLKnSDz0mM
I'd also like to link you to a video about the social construct fallacy from the same person. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ax8G4AMpHI8

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.

I really wasn't trying to cop-out with that response, but I can see how one could take it that way. I know that perfect certainty is never possible, but you can with most certainty say that: A) The universe is more than 6000 years old. B) Evolution is in fact a reality because we see it happen. C) There is no such thing as irreducible complexity, because on a quantum level, everything can be broken down and used somewhere else.
I know the burden of proof is on the shoulders of the person making a claim, and if I knew how to do a meta-analysis of existing scientific data to attempt to find evidence to prove my hypothesis, I would. However, I don't. This is just my little hypothesis based on my understanding of how human development and psychology works. I don't consider anyone any less of a person than anyone else, I just want to try and accumulate all the facts before we as a society accept what could be a fairly large mental-health issue. Like I said, this is my own stance on it, I'm not posing it as an objective truth.

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?

Actually, science does contradict the idea of more than two genders. A quick crash-course in how humans develop from conception to birth is enough to define that gender is, in fact, a binary.
Sexual orientation is however a much more nebulous concept, and this comparison is essentially apples and oranges. Unlike gender, there's not a particular chromosome that tells a human being what they're attracted to, at least that I'm aware of.
Using what I know about homosexuality, bisexuality, etc, I think that you're taking a bit of a narrow focus if you think that sexuality is a binary, or even a spectrum. It seems to come down to a case-by-case basis as to who's attracted to what, and when. Sure, it's fairly easy to define, but it seems to mostly come down to a point model as opposed to a sliding scale or 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.

If you really stretch the definition of gender to include chromosomal anomalies like hermaphrodism and intersexuality, you might have an okay case to make to say there are three genders. However, the sheer rarity of true intersexuality shows that even if there was, it's not really worth defining as anything other than a rare quirk of reproduction and biology.

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!"

It all comes back to the way humans produce, and the fact that male sex/gender is determined by the presence of a Y chromosome, and the female sex/gender is determined by a lack thereof.

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

No, I don't agree. Homosexuallity/Bisexuality/asexuality/whatever are different from intersexuality/hermaphrodism in distinct scientific ways, both of which are different from trying to say that there are more than two genders because of reasons.

 

[JimB]

Oh come on, the lizard part is so obvious to prove false.

I don't care. If chocolate pickles thinks he's a lizard and wants me to call him a lizard, then I have no profit on calling him something else, except for whatever joy I can take in being a dick to him; and taking joy in being a dick is something I tend to be ashamed of.

Quite frankly, I'd refuse because I find the notion absurd.

As long as you're cool with other people declaring your beliefs absurd and refusing to respect them, do what you do.

Also I'll note my distaste for whoever tried to compare otherkin to trans people in the first place.

Thank you. It was a weird conflation, and I feel bad that I didn't think to call him on it.

This is a forum; people use colloquial definitions.

And they need to stop, in part because they have no business diagnosing anyone and in part because it does no one any good to confuse being weird with having a mental disease or defect. Blanket statements are an evil to be avoided, or at least appended with great big asterisks.

When did "gender" become a separate word from "sex?"

In the seventies, though, fun fact, the original proposal was that "sex" should refer to social roles and "gender" should refer to biological traits. The specific year a consensus was formed depends on your percentage requirements, but certainly by 1980, it was accepted scientific parlance.

My high school and college biology courses never said anything about them being two different words.

My high school and college history courses never told me that Hawaii was subsumed into the United States at gunpoint without the consent of the Hawaiian people, but it still happened.

When you refer to expectations placed upon a woman's appearance, you're referring to either secondary sexual characteristics, or to gender-roles and gender-norms, not gender in and of itself.

I'm really not. If I am, then women who have had mastectomies are men.

Here's a video that gives a general explanation of how gender/sex is linked to biology.

I'm aware they're related, but they are not synonymous.

I'd also like to link you to a video about the social construct fallacy from the same person.

This person's disagreement with forty-something years of accepted scientific consensus doesn't interest me much.

I know the burden of proof is on the shoulders of the person making a claim, and if I knew how to do a meta-analysis of existing scientific data to attempt to find evidence to prove my hypothesis, I would. However, I don't. This is just my little hypothesis based on my understanding of how human development and psychology works. I don't consider anyone any less of a person than anyone else, I just want to try and accumulate all the facts before we as a society accept what could be a fairly large mental-health issue. Like I said, this is my own stance on it, I'm not posing it as an objective truth.

Okay. Well, as I said earlier in this thread, transgenderism on its own does not meet the criteria set forth in the DSM-5 to be categorized as a mental disorder, so again, I'm gonna go with peer-reviewed consensus rather than one guy's personal understanding.

Actually, science does contradict the idea of more than two genders. A quick crash-course in how humans develop from conception to birth is enough to define that gender is, in fact, a binary.

Are you using "gender" when you mean "sex" again? Because as someone in this thread already pointed out, there are multiple sexes observed in human beings (X; XX; XY; XXY; XYY; probably a bunch of others I'm forgetting). If you are still meaning "gender," then I invite you to provide specific quotes saying only two social roles exist dependent on perception of sex.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

Oh come on, the lizard part is so obvious to prove false.

I don't care. If chocolate pickles thinks he's a lizard and wants me to call him a lizard, then I have no profit on calling him something else, except for whatever joy I can take in being a dick to him; and taking joy in being a dick is something I tend to be ashamed of.

Quite frankly, I'd refuse because I find the notion absurd.

As long as you're cool with other people declaring your beliefs absurd and refusing to respect them, do what you do.

That doesn't follow. See this assumes I think my idea and otherkin BS are somehow comparable. I don't. This makes as little sense as saying if you expect people to respect gravity we must respect any BS they deign to spout.

Also I'll note my distaste for whoever tried to compare otherkin to trans people in the first place.

Thank you. It was a weird conflation, and I feel bad that I didn't think to call him on it.

It's an expected conflation online but a bad one.

This is a forum; people use colloquial definitions.

And they need to stop, in part because they have no business diagnosing anyone and in part because it does no one any good to confuse being weird with having a mental disease or defect. Blanket statements are an evil to be avoided, or at least appended with great big asterisks.

Using coloquial definitions of insane isn't a diagnosis. It's what people tend to call abandoning all reason

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

Oh come on, the lizard part is so obvious to prove false.

I don't care. If chocolate pickles thinks he's a lizard and wants me to call him a lizard, then I have no profit on calling him something else, except for whatever joy I can take in being a dick to him; and taking joy in being a dick is something I tend to be ashamed of.

Quite frankly, I'd refuse because I find the notion absurd.

As long as you're cool with other people declaring your beliefs absurd and refusing to respect them, do what you do.

That doesn't follow. See this assumes I think my idea and otherkin BS are somehow comparable. I don't. This makes as little sense as saying if you expect people to respect gravity we must respect any BS they deign to spout.

Also I'll note my distaste for whoever tried to compare otherkin to trans people in the first place.

Thank you. It was a weird conflation, and I feel bad that I didn't think to call him on it.

It's an expected conflation online but a bad one.

This is a forum; people use colloquial definitions.

And they need to stop, in part because they have no business diagnosing anyone and in part because it does no one any good to confuse being weird with having a mental disease or defect. Blanket statements are an evil to be avoided, or at least appended with great big asterisks.

Using coloquial definitions of insane isn't a diagnosis. It's what people tend to call abandoning all reason

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Trans or not, I believe that getting uppity over a small thing like a pronoun is not the sign of a nice or even tolerant person. I presume that you are a trans person as well, do you tell your associates off repeatedly for using the wrong terms of address? Does this also refer to your close friends and acquaintances?

Pretty sure it's a matter of mutual accomodation. I haven't personally met trans people that get annoyed by a slip of the tongue. In the same way I was a teacher, plenty of times a student will call one of us 'mum' or 'dad' (regardless of gender)... brain isn't infallible. Social suicide for those that did because teens are cruel. If you're going out of your way to basically tell a person that you disagree with their existence, then I'm pretty sure agitation is a suitable response because you are deliberately acting as an agitator. In the same way that if I went to work and people treated me like a child I'd have the right to tell them to fuck right off. In a manner befitting my cool, professional exterior naturally.

Less a reflection on my personality. Why should people accept your pisspoor behaviour with good graces?

 

[JimB]

That doesn't follow. See this assumes I think my idea and otherkin BS are somehow comparable.

No. I don't care about objective truth in this instance, because whether otherkin are objectively right or objectively wrong doesn't matter. They are making a request that is strange but that costs you literally nothing to go along with, and you choose to a pissing contest. If you want to pick fights, then go ahead, but expect others to come along and whip their own dicks out over your beliefs that aren't hurting them.

Using colloquial definitions of insane isn't a diagnosis. It's what people tend to call abandoning all reason.

And it's factually incorrect. I don't support weakening the word "insane" when there are tons of other non-diagnostic terms a person can use instead.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

That doesn't follow. See this assumes I think my idea and otherkin BS are somehow comparable.

No. I don't care about objective truth in this instance, because whether otherkin are objectively right or objectively wrong doesn't matter.

Yes it does matter. It's the difference between expecting someone to accommodate for gravity and accommodating for ghosts.

They are making a request that is strange but that costs you literally nothing to go along with, and you choose to a pissing contest.

It annoys me like telling me to play pretend about ghosts or prayer would annoy me. Do that silliness but don't expect me to participate.

If you want to pick fights, then go ahead, but expect others to come along and whip their own dicks out over your beliefs that aren't hurting them.

That's just am absurd comparison though that completely ignores the problem people have with otherkin and going along with playing pretend.

Using colloquial definitions of insane isn't a diagnosis. It's what people tend to call abandoning all reason.

And it's factually incorrect. I don't support weakening the word "insane" when there are tons of other non-diagnostic terms a person can use instead.[/quote]

It's not factually incorrect because the sole use of the word is not diagnostic. It had a more casual usage. See 3:http://beta.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/insanity

 

[ThatOtherGirl]

Isn't a biologically male person who identifies himself as a woman wrong?

The experts in the field say no, she is not wrong. The problem here is you are conflating gender and sex, tying personal identity to rigid physical characteristics. Turns out these things, while highly correlated, are not the same.

Or is he also correct because he defines who he is and not biological requisites?

I think an important point to note here is that trans people do not define who they are in the sense that they don't choose. We never got to choose. Many of us fight against being trans for years and years. For whatever reason we are the way we are and we have to figure it out.

Trans or not, I believe that getting uppity over a small thing like a pronoun is not the sign of a nice or even tolerant person. I presume that you are a trans person as well, do you tell your associates off repeatedly for using the wrong terms of address? Does this also refer to your close friends and acquaintances?

No, I don't.

My wife gets a free pass to call me whatever she wants. She tends to properly gender me, but does occasionally slip up.

My friends and about half of the family I was close with before coming out all make good faith efforts to properly gender me so I see no reason to make a deal about it. They are also courteous enough to make a special effort in public situations because they know the difficulties it can cause for me if they accidentally out me. I am rarely misgendered in public, which is when it really matters.

The family who refuse to properly gender me have decided to shun me.

I actually don't have any friends who intentionally misgender me or don't make an effort to gender my properly, but if I did I doubt I would be friends with them for long. Not necessarily because of the misgendering, though that would be a real problem in public situations, but because every person I have ever met who insists on misgendering me has ultimately proven to be fairly hostile towards trans people.

As for work, I am lucky enough to work at a company that has strict anti discrimination policies that cover transgender individuals, and I tend to keep to myself as much as possible so only a few know I am transgender anyway, so it happens very rarely there.

Basically, in my experience anyone who makes a good faith effort doesn't need me to get uppity at them to do their best, and anyone who wont is going to do far worse and isn't worth associating with.

 

[JimB]

Yes it does matter. It's the difference between expecting someone to accommodate for gravity and accommodating for ghosts.

Please explain exactly how it does matter, Secondhand Revenant. You keep making vague allusions to cosmological forces, but they're kind of nonsense here unless you think gravity's feelings will be hurt unless you stick up for it. Who is being harmed by humoring an otherkin, and what is the mechanism by which that harm is delivered?

It's not factually incorrect because the sole use of the word is not diagnostic. It had a more casual usage.

Since the word had both definitions, I am not wrong to say it's factually incorrect, because without further qualification, my interpretation of the term is equally valid. This is part of why I think it's a bad idea to weaken the use of the word "insane" by having it hold multiple, contradictory definitions related to a narrow field, like how "literally" has been weakened by being defined as "not literally" or "censorship" has been defined as "not actively providing a platform for someone else to speak, with all expenses of that platform being absorbed by the provider." Greater precision in language is a good thing.

 

[Lictor Face]

Is that a trick question. You are genuinely confusing me.

What's confusing? Can you give me a concise definition that encompasses all the people who are generally considered women?

They have female reproductive organs. Or at least that's how it is in the country that I live in. We're straight forward like that.

Isn't a biologically male person who identifies himself as a woman wrong?

Wrong by what standard? I personally define right and wrong, correct and incorrect, with a heavy component of how much harm is done by a conclusion. Whom is being hurt by this biological man identifying as a woman? What is the specific nature of the harm done? So far as I'm aware, the trans person is helped by that identification (it helps to resolve her gender dysphoria), and the only people who are hurt are people who get offended on pedantic or didactic levels, which I simply do not care about. So no, that hypothetical woman calling herself a woman is not, by any estimation I place value in, wrong.

I'd start with the majority then.

I am not sure what you mean by "the standard of the majority." Are you talking about popular opinion? Because I am not interested in reducing complex, nuanced matters of science down to a popular vote, particularly when "the majority" are ignorant of the issue.

Oh my mistake. I'm talking about the state. After all, if the majority of the populace thinks that a person with female productive organs is female, regardless of said person's self-definition, the state will treat the person accordingly in all relevant areas (law, healthcare, etc). For example, in the country I live in, there is a woman's charter and certain healthcare benefits and subsidiaries for bearing children. Naturally. A person with male reproductive organs that views itself as a female is not privy to these benefits.

Anyway, regarding the rest of your points, wouldn't this be the case of oversensitivity? I've known people who were often (wrongly) thought of as gay or lesbian due to their mannerisms and character, most of them either didn't care or took it into their stride. They're fun people to be around.

"My friends are totally cool with being misgendered" is a fine anecdote and all, and I'm glad you enjoy their company, but your friends are not empowered to dictate behavior to the trans community. Nor are you by invoking their authority. There is no obligation to be cool with someone calling you something you're not.

I suppose you're right. There isn't any obligation to be cool with someone calling you something that you're not. But at the same time, there isn't any obligation to retaliate when you are attacked, nor respond when you are insulted. Its a lot of semantics I feel. Hell I'd go as far to say and turn the tables. There isn't an obligation to not be cool with someone calling you something you're not. Like having your name mispronounced for years by extended family, with you not caring enough to correct them or finding it amusing.

Or I suppose that the person mispronouncing your name means enough to you that it doesn't matter anyway.

Oh no I'm not invoking anything, and if my friends are empowered to dictate something. I'd say it would be dictating behavior in society as a whole. Afterall transgenders are not exempt from good or bad behavior eh?

As far as I can tell, a person who is deadset or insists on being referred to as a "he" or "she" (regardless of...its superficial gender? Ugh) by her peers is probably not a very nice person at all. I know I wouldn't want to be around such a person, nevermind be friends or joke around with...it? (Look I can't even refer to this imaginary person in this post.)

Yes, you could. You could say "they."


Okay. That is your standard to live by, and you're welcome to it. Why are you arguing against trans people being allowed to have their own standards to live by?

Oh I think my standard is very reasonable. It minimizes damage to all parties involved.

For myself, I don't care or worry enough about how I am referred to.

Therefore people who refer to me as whatever don't run the risk of me telling them off, or getting offended/confused by whatever I have to say over it. (Afterall, terms of address aren't high on my social shopping list anyway)

Hence society's perception of me is neutral, or even positive. It becomes a lot easier to co-exist and interact with me without overt worry or lack of familiarity. And, personality withstanding, much easier to form close relationships and make new friends.

I think that's a lot more important than a set of pronouns.

But I'm not arguing against transpeople doing whatever, they can do whatever they want. So long as they are aware of the possible repercussions if they press the issue to hard or make it too significant.

 

[Zontar]

"Hi, I'm Corey, are you a boy or a girl?".

We all have such struggles in our lives.

Spoiler: The struggle is real

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

I got detention for that. To this day I still don't know the answer to that question <_<, when it enters my mind it eats away at me. Were they a boy, a girl, neither, both, something else? It's not that specific kind of question that eats away at me, it's any unanswered question.

Sounds like a 'you' problem that other people don't need to worry about. I'm utterly unconvinced by the idea that trans people are expected to be the ones to be patient. I mean the situation can only be as a respondent. If you can't be bothered to actually spend any time showing you're some benign element not liable to beat the shit out of me because you might have caught "the gayz" or you're basically there to grind a personal axe, then I'm more likely to treat the same question with a preemptive 'not interested'.

That's not 'offence'... certainly don't feel like I need to provide any more information than that. If someone is going to boil basic courtesy down to nothing, basic courtesy you'd afford to others, and transform it into an interrogative, then why should I pretend there is any reason to invest attention in them? But apparently trans people are the ones that should moderate their behaviour. Not simply expect people to treat them like people as opposed to a pile of flesh.

 

[Something Amyss]

I think that does answer my question. I really appreciate you taking the time to write all that up, and putting yourself out there, i really do, thank you. I think the general sense of dysphoria answers my question perfectly. I guess it's a bit odd to me, since i've never really had *that* much of a gender identity, i mean i identify as cis, but it's never struck me as a particularly meaningful part of my identity for me, it's entirely possible i'm just very odd in that respect, but it means it's sometimes a bit tough for me to grasp these things. I kinda feel bad for not having more to say, since you gave such a good response, but i don't really, so i guess i'll just say thanks again!

Hell, if I could help, I'm glad to have.

I know right? Just look at the 80's. Hair bands left and right, and they were "sexy masculine" gods of rock. Including Rob Halford. Who looks, in retrospect, like one of the "gayest" guys ever, but not only was considered a manly man of manliness, but also totally fooled decades worth of fans that he wasn't gay. Or well, fooled is a wrong term, implying an intentional deception, but even with his stage persona, nobody even considered he was gay until he declared it years later.

Somewhat related, Rob Halford actually said at one point in an interview that this puzzled him. It was basically a case of "how sis people see me and not know I was gay?" Given recent circumstances, I can relate.

But yeah, there are certain traits that seem to shift rather routinely. Appropriate length of hair for a man is definitely one of them (women, too, actually). And it's by no means a new phenomena, but people always seem to think it's set in stone.

Well, I wouldn't say "unbothered" by it? I mean it's never comfortable to be the target of ridicule and bullying, but it just confused me more than anything. I mean they would make these declarations about me, and I would think. "...but I really love vaginas...like a lot. Like taking up 75% of my mental runtime as a teenager." So I just personally decided they didn't know what the fuck they were talking about, and ignored them for the most part. As to them not kicking the shit out of me, that would be due to a few reasons. 1. I'm 6ft 4in tall, and 2. Back then, was in really good shape, and I am a black belt in Tong Soo Do (South Korean martial arts). So most of them weren't inclined to try and mess with me physically, because I quite literally towered over most of them. They would mock me from a distance, because I was a fairly easy going guy, but they never would really try and get in my face. Mostly because I could kick their head off before they got that close. xD In fact, I did a friendly sparring match with one of them at a friends house, with protective gear and all, and he said that he'd never fought anyone that went at them so fiercely. Which is funny, because I was the most passive, defensive fighter in my class. But compared to him, I was apparently Bruce Lee or something. xD

I imagine it would be especially rough for people who are that tied to concepts of masculinity to lose to someone who doesn't meet their standards for whatever reason. I mean, it shouldn't be a problem, but then, judging people's sexuality/gender/whatever based on their hobbies shouldn't, either.

What I meant by "unbothered" was more that it didn't particularly stop you. Like, I did gather they gave you shit and that kind of sucks. It's just cool that it didn't dominate you or anything. I'd been acutely aware of the "boy things/girl things" divide almost as far back as I can remember, and...I let people stop me. I'm not saying that I would totally be all girly if only they had left me alone, more that the few things I did enjoy that fall into "girly" stereotypes were things I tended to avoid or do in secret. At least, until the middle of high school, when I ran out of fucks to give.

snipperoony!

It's actually amazing how little thought people seem to put into why they're reacting as they do. Like the natural order has been upset by a little boy not knowing his place in the world. Thank god all those good people are around to clutch at pearls and steer the child to what boys actually want. Crisis averted. I mean, this is more or less related to gender norms/gender roles, etc.

Your particular take is an interesting one, though. XD Never got the "girls/boys are icky" thing, either.

If my parents only knew the torrid love affairs and orgies my action figures got up to as a kid! xD But yeah, it kind of surprises me, and in another way doesn't. I'm starting to see some of it indirectly now, with one of my god-daughters (even though I'm an atheist, but hey, the title sticks, and it amuses me xD). Her mother told me about how she wanted to do martial arts last year, but then suddenly lost interest. This bothered me, because I LOVED martial arts as a kid. It was in fact, the one physical sport that I could truly enjoy. The training and discipline were immense help to me as a kid, to deal with a lot of issues in my life. So I was all for helping her learn some self defense. Then her mom said that some of the kids in her school were making fun of her, saying she was "acting like a boy", so she stopped showing interest in it. Apparently she liked several boy things, like the Ninja Turtles, and karate. So, due to social pressures, she is showing less interest in those things. Which bothers me a lot, as well as her mom. We're trying to get her interested in martial arts again. Maybe I need to find some girl friendly martial arts shows to show her. Oooh! Like Avatar: the Last Airbender series. Yeah, *ponders, stroking chin like a villain* yesssss, excellent. Need to find some other examples of badass girl fighters I think, to show her that it's not just boys that can kick ass.

Oh jeeze, thanks for reminding me that the guy who wants me to be his best man also wants me to be the godfather of his kid. Id you think it's awkward being an atheist godfather, try it while trans. Eep.

Better finish this post before I start hyperventilating.

But yeah, that definitely blows, but it's not in any way surprising.

I was kind of wondering if maybe that trend was ending. The last martial art I took had quite a few women amongst the regular rosters, including three or four who had ranks in other martial arts already. Granted, we're talking mostly adult women, not young girls. The youngest in the class was 16 when I signed up.

The rest of what I was going to say starts to go less into gender identity (which is germane) and gender roles (which is already kind of iffy in terms of being on-topic, but I think this has mostly been related) and starts getting super off topic, so I'm just going to shoot you a PM in the morning. I mean, after I've gone to bed, because it's 5 AM here and my brain is fried. Hopefully, my back will let me sleep now.

 

[JimB]

Oh my mistake. I'm talking about the state. After all, if the majority of the populace thinks that a person with female productive organs is female, regardless of said person's self-definition, the state will treat the person accordingly in all relevant areas (law, healthcare, etc).

In that case, no, I will not adopt that standard because it's an argumentum ad populum fallacy, and because the state is incorrectly conflating sex and gender, defining "male" and "female" solely by physical characteristics (and arguably not even by the correct physical characteristics, since biological sex is determined by more than whether your crotch is an innie or an outie) rather than by social components which, in case you missed my point about it earlier, has been an accepted factor in gender in the field of social sciences for forty-something years.

For example, in the country I live in, there is a woman's charter and certain healthcare benefits and subsidiaries for bearing children. Naturally, a person with male reproductive organs that views itself as a female is not privy to these benefits.

Is a woman who's incapable of reproducing (a cancer survivor, for instance, or someone who's experienced menopause) also privy to those benefits? Either way, your government is creating problems for itself by using this incorrect standard to determine who is female.

Hell, I'd go as far to say and turn the tables. There isn't an obligation to not be cool with someone calling you something you're not.

That's not really turning the tables, though, because the arguments are different. You're arguing to tell people what their innermost personal feelings should be, and I'm arguing that I have no right to tell anyone, whether the offended or the unoffended, that the personal feelings they experience are wrong.

I think my standard is very reasonable. It minimizes damage to all parties involved.

I keep asking people this and getting no answers, but: Lictor Face, what damage is done to you by a transgendered person being mad when you disrespect their gender identity? And do you think that damage is greater than the damage done by your disrespect?

I think that's a lot more important than a set of pronouns.

That is a very easy and even glib position to hold when nothing about your identity puts you in conflict with the pronouns others choose to slap onto you without your consent.