Moderated Using wrong pronouns= violence??

[Thermal]

It's very much the issue. How can I answer the question? Either d4m10n accepts my self identification or else I have to provide some sort of evidence. I could post a forum-inappropriate picture (which, no, thank you) or I could go get a CT scan or a DNA sequence and submit that.

The true point, however, is that d4m10n was not evaluating my "apparent sex". He couldn't. He simply didn't have enough information to do so. d4m10n was evaluating my conformity to our society's current gender norms for the male gender.

Disagreed. You appear to be a real dude. You may be in an elaborate disguise, a la Ethan Hunt, but until such disclosure becomes known, you appear to be really a dude. Nothing to do with gender self ID or presentation. Just the evidence of our senses.

One might think RuPaul was a woman at a quick glance, and refer to them as she. Upon finding out that he was a man in convincing drag, he would likely be referred to as a he. Nothing to do with roles or presentaion; simply the knowledge of the reality.

 

[tyr_13]

I think the highlighted is the whole point of the discussion.

People dispute that failing to or refusing to use someone's preferred pronouns is violence, because they think there is an important distinction being elided between, say, harassment and violence.

Those who think that failing to or refusing to use someone's preferred pronouns is violence have to argue that there is no meaningful distinction.

I know the difference between a shove and a shank in a kidney, even if they are both physical violence. (The existence of the common phrase 'physical violence' is a solid piece of evidence of the existence of other forms of violence by the way.) There is no reason to say that identifying two things as both 'violence' means there is no meaningful distinction.

Perhaps a better example is knowing the difference between a shove, and a violent shove, even if both are technically 'violence'.

Yet when asked if violence should be met with violence, you argue that the first form of violence is very different to the second form of violence, which is selling the pass.

If there is a useful distinction to be made between two senses of a word (one of which is extremely controversial) then it makes no sense to muddy the waters by insisting that the word be used interchangably for vastly different situations.

I get what you're saying about weakening the meaning (and the hyperbole problem), but not only has that ship more or less sailed on 'violence', the inverse problem is also driving the dilution.

That is to say, people denying that misgendering is even rude, much less a meaningful problem, drive the rhetoric to more 'important and clear' phrases to communicate the actual impacts. Remember the push for the 'power plus' definitions of racism and sexism? Or old school (and still in use) definitions of 'rape' which exclude a lot of actual rape? Proponents of all of them claimed it wasn't to downplay other forms of racial bias, of sex based bias, or of sexual assault that was not being penetrated. In practice, each is used almost exclusively to downplay and dismiss instances of those things some groups found inconvenient.

Here is mostly the same thing. I can disagree with calling misgendering inherently 'violence' while both agreeing that it can be part of targeted harassment as bad as violence and that people opposing the use of the label are mostly doing it to downplay the impact of misgendering. I can recognize that people pushing back saying it can be violence can be doing it in proxy of the argument over if it's wrong to misgender at all.

 

[tyr_13]

I'll use pronouns however the suits in HR say we must until I've paid off my mortgage.

Does your appeal to authority tell us something useful about how pronouns actually work in natural language?

It isn't an appeal to authority (I never implied it was wrong to do because you can get fired for it, but that it being wrong to do can get you fired), and it does show a lot about natural language that you simply try to JAQ around.

Do you continue to misgender a butch woman because you perceive her as a man?

 

[Upchurch]

Disagreed. You appear to be a real dude.

Why? Be specific.

 

[Thermal]

Why? Be specific.

Evidence of my senses. Assuming that the avatar is of you, you appear to be an adult male. If other evidence of my senses is put forth, such as you saying the avatar is of your husband and daughter and you were in fact a woman, I would accept that evidence and refer to you as a she. One runs with the best evidence one has. Your personal feelings rank lower than observable traits, which online, we do not have the luxury of fully gleaning.

 

[tyr_13]

Of course I think self-ID is valid. I also think objective/external ID is valid, and more so.

Sure, but you're basically never in a place to use 'objective' sex anyway.

I think there is some 'confusion' with those who insist that self-id and the distinction between sex and gender are prescriptive models of language when they are in reality simply descriptive.

You're not using objective ID. People almost never do or even can. They're using gender, not sex. I'd argue gender is the better, polite, and only realistic way to go regardless.

There are a lot of forum rules that don't apply in meatspace. I hardly think that's a meaningful barometer, unless you feel like people IRL should be silenced, for instance, for changing the subject in conversation.

I think the consequences are different, but there often are still social consequences for rudely changing the subject IRL, and they also don't really count as 'being silenced'. You can bring it up in a different thread here, or a different space/time IRL.

But you're also dodging why it should even be a rule here. Why should it be? Does that at all apply to meatspace too?

Pretty sure those two, and yours truly, would not misgender a trans person to their faces, mostly because we are reasonably considerate and/or not flaming douchebags. In their absence, though, we might all refer to the person as what we know them to actually be, sex wise. Reality trumps self image for some of us.

I'm also not a flaming douchebag behind someone's back about their pronouns. What people, theprestige and d4m10n argue is that it isn't even being a flaming douchebag to do it to their face.

I don't identify in the negative, as that would be a long and complicated list. But to your point, that would be intentionally mis-species-ing me, as humans are generally male or female, and the pronoun "it" doesn't apply, unless we are making **** up, which is kind of a theme here, come to think of it. .

Which means you have the same objections to the attack helicopter reasoning theprestige used. Great! We agree.

 

[Upchurch]

Evidence of my senses. Assuming that the avatar is of you, you appear to be an adult male.

No, be specific.

ETA: Look, the whole context here is that you can tell my "apparent sex" by looking at my picture. How can you tell my sex by looking at this picture? Is it there beard? Trans man can have beards.

 

[Upchurch]

I'm pretty sure my genitals are not visible in that picture and the resolution is no where near where it would need to be to view my DNA or measure my bone or brain structures. There is nothing in that picture that provides evidence of my sex.

What it does is provide evidence of my conformity to the socially constructed male gender norm. I have a beard. I'm wearing a ball cap and a t-shirt. I appear to have very short hair. These are gender norms, not exclusive sexual traits.

 

[theprestige]

This whole controversy would be a lot different if it were actually about androgynes fighting to have their biological sex accurately identified by observers using third-person pronouns.

 

[d4m10n]

It isn't an appeal to authority (I never implied it was wrong to do because you can get fired for it, but that it being wrong to do can get you fired), and it does show a lot about natural language that you simply try to JAQ around.

You want me to believe that it is wrong to misgender butch females and as evidence of this you cite to corporate HR policies as a reliable guide to normative human behavior? Sorry, I cannot accept the premise.

Do you continue to misgender a butch woman because you perceive her as a man?

Despite having spent significant time around the sort of women who ride their own Harleys and change their own oil, I've never yet mistaken one for male. Some of them have been transitioning to enby or transmasc these days, and that is just fine. There is a good chance I'll still say "she/her" when they aren't around, though, because in my mind pronouns are not mapped to subjective states of consciousness.

 

[d4m10n]

There is nothing in that picture that provides evidence of my sex.

I'd be willing to bet you grew that beard as a result of endogenous testosterone produced in the ordinary way.

(Other people have to take the bet, though, since you have inside information.)

 

[Upchurch]

I'd be willing to bet you grew that beard as a result of endogenous testosterone produced in the ordinary way. Other people have to take the bet, though, since you have inside information.

You also assumed that it's rare for trans men to have gray in their beards. I know at least two. But the point is you're guessing based on gender norms, not any actual knowledge of my sex.

 

[d4m10n]

But the point is you're guessing based on gender norms, not any actual knowledge of my sex.

The ability to grow a beard is neither gendered nor normed. You either have it or you don't, and ~98 to 99% or the time you have it for reasons unrelated to cross-sex gender identity and exogenous hormone supplements. I like those odds.

p.s. PM me to bet, unless you already know the answer.

 

[tyr_13]

You want me to believe that it is wrong to misgender butch females and as evidence of this you cite to corporate HR policies as a reliable guide to normative human behavior? Sorry, I cannot accept the premise.

It is a reflection of that, but as you're JAQing again (framing your arguments as questions to avoid having to defend positive claims), it's all you're going to misrepresent to avoid the point.

Despite having spent significant time around the sort of women who ride their own Harleys and change their own oil, I've never yet mistaken one for male. Some of them have been transitioning to enby or transmasc these days, and that is just fine. There is a good chance I'll still say "she/her" when they aren't around, though, because in my mind pronouns are not mapped to subjective states of consciousness.

Sad dodge. If you misgendered a butch woman, you'd still call her 'him'. You can claim you've never done this, (this being 'misgendered a butch woman') but you almost certainly have. If you were 99% accurate in identifying sex by public outward indications, then almost 2/3rds of the people you id as trans women will actually be cis women. If their word on the matter isn't enough, as you and theprestige (and to a lesser extent Thermal) maintain, then you'd say you're perfectly justified in calling a butch cis woman 'he', and those HR guildlines you claim aren't of any value at all are wrong. You should push back on them if that is the case.

And on another note, 'I'll just keep misgendering them when they aren't around/in my mind' is less rude than face to face, and is all the overwhelming majority of transgender advocates are asking for, it's just way easier to just say the correct pronouns all the time. You're making it harder on yourself just to 'own the trans'. Plus other people are completely in their rights to think less of you, and express that, if you do misgender behind people's backs.

 

[Upchurch]

p.s. PM me to bet, unless you already know the answer.

You can bet all you want, but if you don't tell me what form of answer you'll accept, it's kinda pointless.

eta: actually, even if you do accept self identification, the people you are betting with might not. That seems to be a thing with some people. As I said, I am definitely not posting pictures of my genitalia on the internet and I'm not posting my DNA or CT scans, even if I had them.

 

[d4m10n]

If you misgendered a butch woman, you'd still call her 'him'. You can claim you've never done this, (this being 'misgendered a butch woman') but you almost certainly have.

You have no way of knowing this, even statistically.

If you were 99% accurate in identifying sex by public outward indications, then almost 2/3rds of the people you id as trans women will actually be cis women.

I'm going to need to see your math on this. The trans women I've met in person are generally non-passing or else totally stealth, but I've no way of knowing the ratio of those who pass to those who do not.

If their word on the matter isn't enough, as you and theprestige (and to a lesser extent Thermal) maintain, then you'd say you're perfectly justified in calling a butch cis woman 'he', and those HR [guide]lines you claim aren't of any value at all are wrong.

I need to you to back up a second here. Do you understand that when I say "butch women" I'm talking about cisgender females who happen to dress and act in stereotypically masculine ways? Whether you are using pronouns to denote gender identity or sex at birth, the butch women are firmly in the "she/her" camp, at least until they decide to stop identifying as women.

You're making it harder on yourself just to 'own the trans'.

Do me a favor and leave the mind reading act to cranks like Uri Geller.

 

[d4m10n]

As I said, I am definitely not posting pictures of my genitalia on the internet and I'm not posting my DNA or CT scans, even if I had them.

If you say you were born with(out) testicles, I'm happy to take your word for it. This is not "self-i.d." in the usual sense, though, since that is about gender identity rather than sex at birth.

 

[Paul2]

Why? What makes you so special?

You'll be committing a hate crime if and when you break the hate crime laws.

No. There is no room in my philosophy for people who do not accept the gender identification of others. Putting ones own opinion over other peoples' identity is... well, I'm having trouble coming up with a word other than "bigotry" so I guess that'll have to do.

Arth, I'm not trying to challenge you with these questions, I'm merely seeking clarification. I'm hoping to learn something.

Is not accepting the biological sex of others bigoted like not accepting their gender, and if not, why not?

Why is putting someone's biological sex over the identity they choose a problem?

 

[Upchurch]

If you say you were born with(out) testicles, I'm happy to take your word for it. This is not "self-i.d." in the usual sense, though, since that is about gender identity rather than sex at birth.

How would you know the difference?

ETA: IOW, if I were to say "I am a man", you would accept that if you assumed that I am a cis-man, but you wouldn't accept that if you assumed I am a trans-man. The validity of my self-identification is based purely on whether or not it confirms your bias.

 

[Paul2]

I have an IRL thing that has limited my thread time,



Unless you have the person’s sequenced DNA, CT scan, and/or have performed an intimate physical examination, you aren’t basing it on sex at all, apparent or otherwise. You are assigning pronouns based on a person’s conformity to current social gender norms.

Let's say someone was shown pictures of male and female faces, everyone with a middle-of-the-gender-road haircut, no makeup, same neutral expression on their face; that is, remove all gender-norm identifiers. If that person chose the males and females at a high rate of accuracy, that would mean that they are doing so not on the basis of gender norms, but on the basis of biological differences in the appearance of male and female faces.

What I think happens is that gender norms and biological sex differences both play a role in IDing, say, a stranger on the street.