Moderated Using wrong pronouns= violence??

[tyr_13]

Swing and a miss.

My claim is this: No one here has given an argument for why young Carl (I've just now remembered his name) having just arrived at UC Boulder from the rural backcountry, needs to change his heuristic for assigning pronouns from the very simple one which he learned down on the farm to one which maps on to something entirely subjective in the special case of modern human beings here in the West.

I'm not here to judge people who use the new heuristic, or to judge people like poor ignorant Carl who still think pronouns point to sex rather than gender because he hasn't yet been assigned any Judith Butler and has no idea that he even has a gender identity. I'm not here to preach to folks that one way is right and the other one is wrong, because I'm neither a linguistic prescriptivist nor a social justice activist. I don't even care what pronouns you use for me, personally. All that matters to me is that I can tell which pronouns are pointing to which nouns in any given flow of conversation.

If you want to moralize and judge and feel great about it, I'm not here to stop you. Enjoy yourself! Bask in sun of righteousness from your grandstand atop the moral high ground. The worst I'll ever do about it is let slip a tiny bit of sarcasm on rare occasions, such as now.

You say that I'm wrong then make it clear that I'm correct (or that you don't know what sarcasm is). Your wording tries to make it seem like a denial, but a clear reading shows that you are denying judging people for using either method...which wasn't what you highlighted said.

My parsing of your argument is that it is wrong for people to judge others for denying a person's statement of their correct pronouns. Saying that you aren't judging others for either discarding or embracing the person's statement isn't actually a denial.

Just like 'I'm not here to convince you' doesn't mean I don't disagree with you, 'I'm not here to stop you' doesn't mean I don't disagree with you. If the 'basking' part is sarcasm, then you do in fact judge others for judging others.

Which is all far too nitpicky. I take it you don't object to a paraphrase of your argument being 'you get to pick what pronouns are correct for other people using any method you like' (unless you have house payments and only then will you use stated pronouns and only to that person's face)?

This doesn't even make sense. What are you trying to say, and why do you think this is some kind of a counter to my post?

You said a manly beard has nothing to do with gender and is only about sex. My nephew's sex is female but his beard is manly.

 

[Thermal]

Gotta say, no matter where you stand in this hootinanny, posters are bringing their A-game for expressing their POVs.

 

[Manger Douse]

Only if I only conformed to one aspect of the cultural gender norm, but there isn't just one aspect of the cultural gender norm, so no, you would still have many aspects of my gender expression to evaluate which gender norm, male or female, I conform with.

...

Look, this is really not that hard to understand. When you look at someone, you are not seeing their DNA or internal structures. Except in rare situations, you are not seeing their genitalia. You are not looking at any of the things that define their biological sex. What you can see, however, is their gender expression: how they dress, how they groom themselves, what their interests are, how they react in different situations, etc. With some range of effort*, one can present an androgynous gender expression or a non-conforming gender expression, all without necessarily even identifying as trans-gender.

The point is, when you look at someone, in most cases, you are not looking at the aspects of the that define their sex. You are looking at their gender expression and judging how it conforms to either the male or female norm.





* which is easier for some than others

And that study posted earlier that showed that even when gender markers are removed it's still very easy to tell the sex of a subject? How do you explain that success rate?

 

[lobosrul5]

I thought you were going to forgo the attempts at humor.

"Slapping men's faces on women" is a figure of speech for "presenting a heterosexual man with another man, and expecting him to get sexually excited at the prospect because he sometimes gets sexually excited at the prospect of sex with a woman who happens to be somewhat ugly". I'm pretty sure you knew this, and I'm pretty sure you don't have any serious objection to the point actually being made.

Nope, thats news to me. I was just responding to Thermal's claim that the human race would go extinct if women looked like men above the neck.

 

[Upchurch]

Christ on a swizzle stick, it's like you are intentionally trying to gaslight everyone into thinking humans are not sexually dimorphic. This is just plain silly.

Do you really not understand the difference between gender and sex?

When you look at a person, you sometimes see the cultural impositions placed on them as a result of their assumed sex... that is gender.

You always see the cultural impositions placed on them, unless they are naked and hairless ...and sometimes even then, I suppose.

But you're also LITERALLY seeing the outcome of their DNA, the result of their biological sex, the consequence of evolution that led to a sexually dimorphic species.

You are assuming that biological sex necessarily has a greater impact on gender expression than societal pressures. Sometimes that is true, but not always. And when it doesn't, you're assuming you know the difference.

I remember your claims of your really, really good transdar.

FFS, if you shave your beard off, nobody is going to accidentally assume you're female and want to get you pregnant.

The only thing worse than a straw man is a second-hand straw man.

 

[Upchurch]

And that study posted earlier that showed that even when gender markers are removed it's still very easy to tell the sex of a subject? How do you explain that success rate?

You're just going to ignore the entire conversation we've already had about it and insist that it applies to situations it wasn't designed to address?


Fwiw, I found a random Is This a Man or a Woman? quiz online*. Best I managed was 57%.

eta: Oh, the publish the results:
Result totals
50% Not Bad. 2,131
25% At least you got a few right... 1,669
0% You’re a Failure. 165
75% Good Job! 81
100% Congratulations! 10





* I make no guarantees for the site's safety. I do not expect anyone else to risk going to a rando site.

 

[tyr_13]

You said a manly beard has nothing to do with gender and is only about sex. My nephew's sex is female but his beard is manly.

You want to know what just really twisted my bean? I was just trying to figure out if my nephew is 'legally' my nephew. I think of him that way. But his mother had him with another man well before she met and married my step-brother, who she is also now divorced from. So, ex-step-nephew?

Would people really think nothing of a person refusing to acknowledge my nephew as my nephew? That wouldn't be thought of as rude? Would people really just hear someone call him my nephew, and because it isn't to my face, feel more than justified in denying he's my nephew?

Weird.

 

[Manger Douse]

You're just going to ignore the entire conversation we've already had about it and insist that it applies to situations it wasn't designed to address?


Fwiw, I found a random Is This a Man or a Woman? quiz online*. Best I managed was 57%.





* I make no guarantees for the site's safety. I do not expect anyone else to risk going to a rando site.

So you are seriously staying that if you shaved off the gender markings off of your face and body we would be unable to tell what sex you are - Without gender markings you would appear completely androgynous?

 

[Paul2]

Because unless you are in an active sexual relationship with someone, their biological sex is both irrelevant and none of your business.

Because it denies them agency in their own identity.

And I think you'd say that the reason why biological sex is irrelevant and socially constructed gender isn't is because gender is (defined as) what people decide to engage with within society. Right?

 

[Upchurch]

So you are seriously staying that if you shaved off the gender markings off of your face and body we would be unable to tell what sex you are - Without gender markings you would appear completely androgynous?

Are you okay?

 

[gnome]

... but you assert that we ought to use pronouns for humans based on mind-reading.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding but I don't see where anyone has asked for people to attempt mind reading.

 

[Manger Douse]

Are you okay?

You wrote this: "Look, this is really not that hard to understand. When you look at someone, you are not seeing their DNA or internal structures. Except in rare situations, you are not seeing their genitalia. You are not looking at any of the things that define their biological sex. What you can see, however, is their gender expression"

So you are seriously staying that if you shaved off the gender expressions off of your face and body we would be unable to tell what sex you are - Without gender expressions you would appear completely androgynous?

 

[lobosrul5]

You wrote this: "Look, this is really not that hard to understand. When you look at someone, you are not seeing their DNA or internal structures. Except in rare situations, you are not seeing their genitalia. You are not looking at any of the things that define their biological sex. What you can see, however, is their gender expression"

So you are seriously staying that if you shaved off the gender expressions off of your face and body we would be unable to tell what sex you are - Without gender expressions you would appear completely androgynous?

Things like a square jaw line are also gender expressions unless I'm very much mistaken. So, no its very unlikely he'd look "completely androgynous" by just shaving his beard.

 

[Manger Douse]

Things like a square jaw line are also gender expressions unless I'm very much mistaken. So, no its very unlikely he'd look "completely androgynous" by just shaving his beard.

Amongst other things, that is my understanding (from looking at humans for a long time) too - I'm just so surprised someone would apparently make that claim I'm not looking at their biological sex by just looking at them. Hairstyles and clothing are irrelevant

 

[Upchurch]

You wrote this: "Look, this is really not that hard to understand. When you look at someone, you are not seeing their DNA or internal structures. Except in rare situations, you are not seeing their genitalia. You are not looking at any of the things that define their biological sex. What you can see, however, is their gender expression"

So you are seriously staying that if you shaved off the gender expressions off of your face and body we would be unable to tell what sex you are - Without gender expressions you would appear completely androgynous?

Now, if you’re able, read the paragraph above that part you posted.

 

[Manger Douse]

Now, if you’re able, read the paragraph above that part you posted.

"Only if I only conformed to one aspect of the cultural gender norm, but there isn't just one aspect of the cultural gender norm, so no, you would still have many aspects of my gender expression to evaluate which gender norm, male or female, I conform with."

If you conformed with no cultural gender norms or expressions you would appear completely androgynous?

 

[ahhell]

You're just going to ignore the entire conversation we've already had about it and insist that it applies to situations it wasn't designed to address?


Fwiw, I found a random Is This a Man or a Woman? quiz online*. Best I managed was 57%.

eta: Oh, the publish the results:
Result totals
50% Not Bad. 2,131
25% At least you got a few right... 1,669
0% You’re a Failure. 165
75% Good Job! 81
100% Congratulations! 10

* I make no guarantees for the site's safety. I do not expect anyone else to risk going to a rando site.

Sure, pick a bunch of folks at the far end of the bell curve, many of whom are deliberately presenting as opposite gender, and you can make it hard. Pick a hundred random people of the street, even dress them androgenously and get rid of any make up and then do the same test.

Or you can keep talking about intelligence as though all humans are geniuses and talk about fitness as though all humans are Olympic athletes.

"Only if I only conformed to one aspect of the cultural gender norm, but there isn't just one aspect of the cultural gender norm, so no, you would still have many aspects of my gender expression to evaluate which gender norm, male or female, I conform with."

If you conformed with no cultural gender norms or expressions you would appear completely androgynous?

A beard is a cultural norm, whether you can grow a beard is not. Boobs being sexy is a cultural norm, whether an individual can grow boobs is not. And sure, some dudes have boobs and some women barely have boobs, but those arent' exceptions that proove a rule, they are just exceptions.

 

[Upchurch]

If you conformed with no cultural gender norms you would appear completely androgynous?

Ok, now read the part of the post you did repost.

Are you okay?

 

[Manger Douse]

Ok, now read the part of the post you did repost.

Are you okay?

I've just reposted it. What are you claiming it would or wouldn't take for you to appear completely androgynous?

 

[Upchurch]

Sure, pick a bunch of folks at the far end of the bell curve, many of whom
are deliberately presenting as opposite gender, and you can make it hard. Pick a hundred random people of the street, even dress them androgenously and get rid of any make up and then do the same test.

It’s okay. People only see sex characteristics, not gender expression. And people are really, really accurate at this because a scientific study about an unrelated situation came to a conclusion.

Or maybe it’s easier to understand how gender expression works when one can’t creditably rely on “I can see their sex”?