Moderated Using wrong pronouns= violence??

[Emily's Cat]

It predates MAGA, I believe. I also have a hard time believing people could possibly believe in Flat Earth or psychic powers, but, here we are.

In addition to me being flabbergasted that anyone believes that Michelle Obama is male, or that the Earth is flat, or in psychic powers... I am also flabbergasted that people believe in gendered souls, or that a person's wish for a particular address when in opposition to objective observations is somehow "right".

 

[Thermal]

No.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/customavatars/avatar490_12.gif[/qimg]

You're being unfair. We could just as well conclude that Upchurch is in fact a six year old girl, because they are getting rainbows painted on their face. Six of one gender indicators, right?

Man, the gender assumptions around here.

 

[tyr_13]

I may have missed the argument that what makes pronouns right or wrong is how someone feels about them. Did anyone happen to answer my hypothetical upthread?

Your pretending to ignore the basic elements of people's arguments aside, your hypothetical is a truly facile attempt at a gotcha that fails once realized that there is no evidence non-human animals have concepts of gender and can't communicate if they did.

No, you're moving the goalposts again. I have said slowly, clearly, and dear God repeatedly that I think I can identify a person's sex north of 95% of the time by sight, which is a pretty damned reliable standard. I have not claimed that I am observing their sex. Are you following now?

Do you follow that this speaks against your argument that you're assigning pronouns based on sex? The entire point was to get you to value the target person's input on their what their correct pronouns are because for either sex or gender they know more about themselves than you do.

Of the hundreds and hundreds of people I have met, maybe a half dozen were genuinely androgynous and I couldn't accurately identify which sex they were by sight alone. Those are the ones I am radically inflating in my <5% guesstimate for error. Realistically it would be less than 1%.

Might I have guessed wrong and was not aware of it? Sure. But I have no reason to believe I have.

Ok, you not knowing how many people you saw were trans and passing is kind of inherent in them passing. Please say you understand that.

More to the broader point, even if you, personally, were 99% accurate (so only 2/3rds of the people you thought were trans were actually cis) the general public likely isn't that good 'in the field' as it were.

I know a lot of transgender people. I have several who are family. I get misgendered more than either of my trans nephews, and I'll remind everyone that I'm a six foot tall 265 lbs broad shouldered blacksmith. But I also have wonderful hair and deeply blue eyes, which even with all the rest (and otherwise traditionally masculine facial features) is enough to be called 'miss' quite a lot until fivish years ago. The most classically beautiful cis woman I've ever known got called a man many times purely because she's six foot tall and her hands are proportional to that. The person who I know who gets 'clocked' as being a trans woman more than any person I know is my cousin. She's a cis woman who has borne two children, but she's fat, not great looking, and has a bit of (very light and thin) facial hair.

No, both you and he are rebuilding the argument on the fly to make it easier to attack, rather than addressing the argument as presented.

You're simply not connecting all the dots of your own argument. Seeing that what you're saying has inconsistencies and holes isn't changing it.

The discussions here are pretty casual and conversational in nature. At no point in meatspace does a third party excommunicate a participant for changing the subject or addressing the speaker. Or hotlinking. Or using mild profanity. Or mentioning personally identifying names. There is far less in common with the rules here than shared social rules with meatspace interactions. If you applied forum rules to everyday discourse you would quickly be alone, as brothers would generally be avoiding your weirdo ass like the plague.

...The rules we were talking about were not 'no hotlinking' or anything like it. Did you think that goalpost moving wasn't going to get noticed? What the heck?

No, you are extrapolating by using the parameters very wrongly. My claim is that I think you can generally identify someone's sex using your senses north of 95% of the time, in contrast to the rather silly claim that you can't, like ever (see the wisdom of Upchurch upthread). Might a fully or cosmetically transitioned person slip by? Sure. In fact, kudos to those who appear to be the sex they identify as that convincingly. I'll happily refer to them as the sex they are living as.

But the discussion is about whether visual ID is reliable at all, which is the Boulder guideline, too (remember the Boulder UC guidelines? Seems so long ago). Upchurch is down with this too, saying you cannot assume gender/sex at all, ever. I say this is painfully stupid, and yes you damn well can upwards of 95% of the time, making it more reliable than many assumptions we use daily.

You can't assume you're correct when someone tells you you're not using your proxies for sex. That's the point being proven and you're doing a lot of dancing around to try to avoid the painfully obvious. The idea you're advancing to a lesser degree than theprestige and d4m10n is that your proxy for sex is more reliable than what people say for either sex or gender. Getting you to see that you're using proxy data that can be wrong is like pulling teeth because it pulls down one of the basis for trying to use sex rather than gender in the first place.

 

[Steve]

You're being unfair. We could just as well conclude that Upchurch is in fact a six year old girl, because they are getting rainbows painted on their face. Six of one gender indicators, right?

Man, the gender assumptions around here.

Most likely Upchurch chose a photo of two random strangers as an avatar in anticipation that someone in a future thread might try to determine their sex based on visual clues. Because Upchurch's sex is a closely guarded secret.

Upchurch, in accordance with the "just ask" mantra that has been repeated so many times in this thread, are you a male human?

 

[Emily's Cat]

So much effort in trying to find an excuse for being a jerk rather than simply admitting you want to be a jerk.

Is it really "being a jerk" if I refuse to address a person who identifies as Louis XIV as Your Majesty?

Look - it can be rude, but I don't think it's always rude. I don't think that any person has the right to obligate others to engage in their beliefs. I don't think it's appropriate to expect me to refer to a nun as "Sister Beth" rather than just "Beth", given that I am not catholic and I don't believe in the cosmic jewish zombie. I understand that to some people, my failure to use Beth's preferred title will seem rude - but I don't think it is definitionally rude, nor do I think their perception of my rudeness should have any bearing on what I am expected to say. Personally, I think it's incredibly rude and presumptuous to expect me to adopt the language of their belief in the first place. And provided I'm not actually calling Beth names, nor am I blatantly stressing the word "Beth" to make a point of me not using their title, I think it's completely irrational to view that as being rude at all.

 

[tyr_13]

Umm... do you have support for these assertions?

...Yes, as I linked to upthread? I get that it's a long video but it does have all the tweets and videos she herself made. This includes arguing that cis men should arm themselves and use the women's bathrooms to challenge trans women using them. And her approving of the idea of smashing in the skulls of transgender people. And for trans men to be sterilized.

 

[tyr_13]

Most likely Upchurch chose a photo of two random strangers as an avatar in anticipation that someone in a future thread might try to determine their sex based on visual clues. Because Upchurch's sex is a closely guarded secret.

Upchurch, in accordance with the "just ask" mantra that has been repeated so many times in this thread, are you a male human?

He literally already answered that. I'm not sure what 'gotcha' you all are playing at, but his point is valid and true. You're not basing your assumption of his pronouns on sex, but on the proxy data that just so happens to be closer to gender.

 

[Steve]

He literally already answered that. I'm not sure what 'gotcha' you all are playing at, but his point is valid and true. You're not basing your assumption of his pronouns on sex, but on the proxy data that just so happens to be closer to gender.

Yes I have no doubt missed a lot of posts in this very lengthy thread. I don't spend a lot of time here. A link to the answer would be useful, but not that important.

I don't recall making any posts at all on my assumptions of Upchurch's sex or chosen pronouns and if I have it was inadvertantly and I apologize.

 

[Upchurch]

Seriously, multi-quote is your friend. And a gift to everyone else.

No.

Apparently, you aren't following along very well.

What makes some one biologically male? Genitalia, relative gamete size, DNA contents, maybe some internal structural differences.

How much of that information can you get from a picture of my face and most of my upper body? None, zero, zilch, and definitely nada.

What you can observe from that picture are characteristics that you evaluate as conforming, to some degree, to the socially constructed male gender norm*. No characteristic shown there cannot be shared by either a cis-woman or a trans-man and is in no way unique to biological males. That picture is evidence of gender conformity, not biological sex.



* I find it hilarious that no one has mentioned the rainbow face paint or the fact I'm at a Pride parade which, until the last few decades would had the culture warriors declaring that I could not be a real man

 

[Emily's Cat]

Ohh, I have a quasi humorous retort or three to that...

Uhh, ever met any ugly people with kids? The other two would likely break forum rules.

Really, just think about it.

Ugly <> Opposite Sex Facial Markers

 

[JoeMorgue]

What you can observe from that picture are characteristics that you evaluate as conforming, to some degree, to the socially constructed male gender norm*. No characteristic shown there cannot be shared by either a cis-woman or a trans-man and is in no way unique to biological males. That picture is evidence of gender conformity, not biological sex.

This is like if I asked an AI to put as many progressive buzzwords into a paragraph as possible.

Go outside. Touch grass.

You have a beard, you're a dude.

 

[Upchurch]

You have a beard, you're a dude.

I agree. My friends, the saxophone player and the contra-bass clarinet player, also have beards. They are also dudes. However, several posters here would disagree with us.

And, if my time on this board has taught me anything, you have to be very specific about what you're saying or there will be endless cycles of "but you said...!".



eta: Hell, I can be very specific a some chud will still not understand what is being said.

 

[Emily's Cat]

You're ignoring the entire basis of this discussion. You're dismissing out of hand the challenge to your belief.

You agree that we assign pronouns to animals on the basis of objective observation... but you assert that we ought to use pronouns for humans based on mind-reading. You haven't actually provided any rational argument as to why your belief is "right", nor why anybody should be expected to dismiss observable reality.

You stating your belief as fact does not actually make it fact. It's also completely unconvincing.

Felt the need to add to this.

For a great many animals we don't look at genitals. Many animals are sexually dimorphic. Sure, a male lion has balls... but in most cases we can tell that an adult lion is male from their mane, without ever having seen their genitals. We can tell that a mallard drake is male from their coloration.

We look at genitals on many juvenile animals to distinguish sex prior to puberty - horses, cows, dogs, cats, etc. But for a lot of adult animals, the genitals are unnecessary. Not all animals have a high degree of sexual dimorphism - dogs, for example, have relatively little sexual dimorphism, and the visual difference between a male and a female is not notable - thus we observe genitals. Cats are slightly dimorphic, with male cats having a more angular skull shape and being generally larger than female cats... but it's not particularly obvious when you have a single cat without an opposite sex cat to compare them too, and it's significantly muted in sterilized cats who don't go through puberty to develop those sexual markers.

Humans are relatively highly dimorphic. We're not as dimorphic as angler fish, of course, but we're a lot more dimorphic than most of our pets. We're about as dimorphic as gorillas .

 

[Emily's Cat]

He literally already answered that. I'm not sure what 'gotcha' you all are playing at, but his point is valid and true. You're not basing your assumption of his pronouns on sex, but on the proxy data that just so happens to be closer to gender.

No - the physical attributes of the sexes in humans are NOT gender. They're characteristics of us being a sexually dimorphic species, and they are NOT reflective of ******** social norms.

The fact that Upchurch has a male-typical beard, as well as the brow line and basic facial structure of male humans has NOTHING to do with gender, and everything to do with sex.

 

[Manger Douse]

No characteristic shown there cannot be shared by either a cis-woman or a trans-man and is in no way unique to biological males. That picture is evidence of gender conformity, not biological sex.

Are you seriously claiming that if you shaved the gendered conformity from your face we would be unable to tell if you were male or female?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Seriously, multi-quote is your friend. And a gift to everyone else.



Apparently, you aren't following along very well.

What makes some one biologically male? Genitalia, relative gamete size, DNA contents, maybe some internal structural differences.

How much of that information can you get from a picture of my face and most of my upper body? None, zero, zilch, and definitely nada.

What you can observe from that picture are characteristics that you evaluate as conforming, to some degree, to the socially constructed male gender norm*. No characteristic shown there cannot be shared by either a cis-woman or a trans-man and is in no way unique to biological males. That picture is evidence of gender conformity, not biological sex.

You are conflating the definition of sex with the characteristics of sex. The type of reproductive anatomy a person has is what defines their sex. With that sex come a myriad of sex-linked and sex-correlated physical attributes. Those attributes form a constellation of markers that allow us to visually distinguish a person's sex with an incredibly high degree of accuracy.

I don't have to see your penis to observe that you are 99.9999999% likely to be male. I can observe your face alone - without a beard even - and still be well over 99% accurate. Because humans are dimorphic species, and we've evolved to distinguish males and females of our own species with an incredibly high degree of reliability.

* I find it hilarious that no one has mentioned the rainbow face paint or the fact I'm at a Pride parade which, until the last few decades would had the culture warriors declaring that I could not be a real man

That would be because the people here who understand the topic also understand the difference between figurative meanings of "man" and literal meanings of "man"... and also NONE OF US TAKE THE VIEW THAT PAINTING RAINBOWS ON YOUR FACE MAKES YOU ANY LESS OF A MALE.

In fact, you could slap on a ton pf makeup, a stuffed bra, a ballgown, and some 4 inch heels, and several of us still wouldn't think that makes you any less male than you are.

 

[Thermal]

Do you follow that this speaks against your argument that you're assigning pronouns based on sex? The entire point was to get you to value the target person's input on their what their correct pronouns are because for either sex or gender they know more about themselves than you do.

Yes they do! Great! Agreed! And as I keep saying, I don't care about their rich inner life when making a third person reference. I care about using a pronoun for visually identifying brevity. If we were to know that the dude is really a lady, then "she" it is, in the third person reference.

Ok, you not knowing how many people you saw were trans and passing is kind of inherent in them passing. Please say you understand that.

Yes, and as I've said more than a few times, kudos to them. I'm referencing (when using a third person pronoun) about what will accurately identify them. If they are passing trans, l refer to them by their presentation. Because I am not analyzing their inner life. I'm referring to their apparent sex by using pronouns.

More to the broader point, even if you, personally, were 99% accurate (so only 2/3rds of the people you thought were trans were actually cis) the general public likely isn't that good 'in the field' as it were.

I know a lot of transgender people. I have several who are family. I get misgendered more than either of my trans nephews, and I'll remind everyone that I'm a six foot tall 265 lbs broad shouldered blacksmith. But I also have wonderful hair and deeply blue eyes, which even with all the rest (and otherwise traditionally masculine facial features) is enough to be called 'miss' quite a lot until fivish years ago. The most classically beautiful cis woman I've ever known got called a man many times purely because she's six foot tall and her hands are proportional to that. The person who I know who gets 'clocked' as being a trans woman more than any person I know is my cousin. She's a cis woman who has borne two children, but she's fat, not great looking, and has a bit of (very light and thin) facial hair.

You're simply not connecting all the dots of your own argument. Seeing that what you're saying has inconsistencies and holes isn't changing it.

Dude. You're arguing a point we are not makng. The argument being bantered is whether the use of pronouns refer to an individual's choice of gender, or of their evidenced sex. I think it is their evidenced sex, evaluated correctly or not. You run with what you can glean, not stop and ask the third person to fill out a questionnaire.

...The rules we were talking about were not 'no hotlinking' or anything like it. Did you think that goalpost moving wasn't going to get noticed? What the heck?

I hit the ones under discussion already. I am further pointing out that none of the others apply IRL either.

You can't assume you're correct when someone tells you you're not using your proxies for sex. That's the point being proven and you're doing a lot of dancing around to try to avoid the painfully obvious. The idea you're advancing to a lesser degree than theprestige and d4m10n is that your proxy for sex is more reliable than what people say for either sex or gender. Getting you to see that you're using proxy data that can be wrong is like pulling teeth because it pulls down one of the basis for trying to use sex rather than gender in the first place.

WTF dude? I've said a dozen times that I could easily be wrong. The whole point of pronouns is the identifying distinction. Whether it is physically right or wrong is nearly irrelevant. Pointing at a group of guys with one apparent female and saying "she" to refer to her has nothing to do with being trans or with the guys' ******* gender ID. It's a distinction made by what is known of their apparent sex.

 

[Steve]

Deleted.

 

[Sherkeu]

Seriously, multi-quote is your friend. And a gift to everyone else.



Apparently, you aren't following along very well.

What makes some one biologically male? Genitalia, relative gamete size, DNA contents, maybe some internal structural differences.

How much of that information can you get from a picture of my face and most of my upper body? None, zero, zilch, and definitely nada.

What you can observe from that picture are characteristics that you evaluate as conforming, to some degree, to the socially constructed male gender norm*. No characteristic shown there cannot be shared by either a cis-woman or a trans-man and is in no way unique to biological males. That picture is evidence of gender conformity, not biological sex.


* I find it hilarious that no one has mentioned the rainbow face paint or the fact I'm at a Pride parade which, until the last few decades would had the culture warriors declaring that I could not be a real man

It is a weird thing to argue mainly because I think ALL of us in this thread had a few decades of adult life before the current gender trend came around to a mainstream topic (2013? or so?). And it is likely we met some people in that time.
We all remember how many times it happened that anyone was misgendered.
And the answer is, almost never. I cannot think of a single instance in my own history but it could have happened.

I'm feeling a bit "get off my lawn you pesky kids! In my day..." /geezer

 

[Thermal]

Most likely Upchurch chose a photo of two random strangers as an avatar in anticipation that someone in a future thread might try to determine their sex based on visual clues. Because Upchurch's sex is a closely guarded secret.

Upchurch, in accordance with the "just ask" mantra that has been repeated so many times in this thread, are you a male human?

He has thoughtfully answered by saying his pronouns are "he/him".

Oh ****, I used "his" without clarifying if he used that one. I'm such a TERF. Can I borrow someone's hair shirt?