"Misgendering" is now a federal offense

[smartcooky]

Ah, America! The Land of Free Speech, where it is now an offense to speak some aspects of observable, science-based reality.

All transwomen are male - that is a science-based, observable, verifiable reality.
There is no way I am going to knowingly refer to a transwoman by the honorifics/pronouns "she" or "her" even at the person's own request, because doing so denies factual reality!

 

[bruto]

Sure, but there's a similar logic being applied. Not using someone's preferred pronouns is rude because you not referring to them as they want to be referred. The question Hercules post implies is, how is this different from other situations where we refer to be people not as they would prefer to be referred, but as we perceive them?

There may be meaningful differences, but "it's not a pronoun" clearly isn't the meaningful thing there.

Maybe not meaningful in a way solves the insoluble impasse, and likely not in a way that solves our presumption of what Hercules was implying, but it's entirely applicable to Hercules's response to Arthwollipot's admonition to use the pronouns people prefer.

 

[Orphia Nay]

Ah, America! The Land of Free Speech, where it is now an offense to speak some aspects of observable, science-based reality.

All transwomen are male - that is a science-based, observable, verifiable reality.
There is no way I am going to knowingly refer to a transwoman by the honorifics/pronouns "she" or "her" even at the person's own request, because doing so denies factual reality!

[qimg]https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/vewrug7ip3ui22kzhok13/selfID.png?rlkey=akg8vnde0mnszhvydxtm6iu4k&raw=1[/qimg]

You've said in the past that you mean a cross-dresser when you say "transwoman" and you don't mean a "transsexual" who's had surgery.

So I'll ask you, would you call a transsexual by their preferred pronouns?

 

[Orphia Nay]

Okay. You still haven't actually addressed the point, or given argument showing that there is no point, you've just said something about the supposed motives of the person making it.

ETA Worth noting is that I'm not arguing the Hercules is making a valid point. I'm arguing that "it's not a pronoun" isn't a meaningful response. It's very plausible that a meaningful response exists.

You're floundering. I was making my own point, thanks.

 

[smartcooky]

Highness is not a ******* pronoun.

Oh, yes it is!

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Your_Highness

and "His Royal Highness" and "Her Royal Highness" are also a pronouns

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/His_Royal_Highness
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Her_Royal_Highness

I now identify as King Smartcooky of the Republic of ISF, President for Life, Field Marshal Smartcooky VC, DSO, MC, CBE, Lord of All the Beasts of the Earth and Fishes of the Seas. My pronouns are "His Royal Highness"/"His Excellency".

When referring to me, I demand you use "His Royal Highness" or "His Excellency".
When addressing me personally, I demand you use "Your Royal Highness" or "Your Excellency".

 

[smartcooky]

You've said in the past that you mean a cross-dresser when you say "transwoman" and you don't mean a "transsexual" who's had surgery.

So I'll ask you, would you call a transsexual by their preferred pronouns?

Yup! Definitely. She has earned the right!

I have the utmost respect for any person who has that level of commitment to their belief that they are a woman, such that they would have their salami and the nutsack cut off, thereby literally cutting off any way back. To me, this shows they are not using self ID for the mere convenience of gaining access to women's spaces.

 

[Orphia Nay]

Yup! Definitely. She has earned the right!

I have the utmost respect for any person who has that level of commitment to their belief that they are a woman, such that they would have their salami and the nutsack cut off, thereby literally cutting off any way back. To me, this shows they are not using self ID for the mere convenience of gaining access to women's spaces.

Thanks for answering.

Hercules56, Trausti, do you agree with Smartcooky?

 

[Darat]

Do pronouns refer to gender or to sex?

On this forum, the distinction doesn't much matter, since none of our interactions are physical. But in the real world, the distinction does matter, quite a lot. If I use one set of pronouns for you which correctly (and possibly obviously as well) correspond to your sex, but you don't like me doing that because you want me to use a different set to refer to your gender, and I really bullying you because I use pronouns to refer to sex and not gender? I don't think that you can automatically call that bullying.

Neither Thermal not myself have said that.

 

[Darat]

Sure, but there's a similar logic being applied. Not using someone's preferred pronouns is rude because you not referring to them as they want to be referred. The question Hercules post implies is, how is this different from other situations where we refer to be people not as they would prefer to be referred, but as we perceive them?

There may be meaningful differences, but "it's not a pronoun" clearly isn't the meaningful thing there.

I would hold that It is the same as saying to someone "No I will not call you Graham because you don't look like a Graham to me, I am going to call you Geraldine"

The argument for it not being the same is that pronouns refer to an essential biological fact, which is either female or male and asking someone to use a preferred pronoun which is not one that in English has traditionally been used for biological sex identification is to ask others to state a lie.

However unless you have done a genetic test you do not know what a work colleague's biological sex is, until you have objectively identified their biological sex you are in fact saying "No I will not call you "he" because you do not look like a "he" to me, I am going to call you "she""

 

[Darat]

Rachel Dolezal self-identifies as a black woman. It's extremely rude to deny that she's a black woman.

One drop rule.

 

[Roboramma]

Maybe not meaningful in a way solves the insoluble impasse, and likely not in a way that solves our presumption of what Hercules was implying, but it's entirely applicable to Hercules's response to Arthwollipot's admonition to use the pronouns people prefer.

No, again, it's not. Hercules offers an argument about why he shouldn't use the pronouns people prefer, specifically that personal preference shouldn't determine how we refer to people. That is, at least, the argument implicit in his point about referring to people as "your highness". It's possible that in general personal preference matters, but not in his case, which is why it differs from the case of pronouns, or that in general personal preference doesn't matter, but in the specific case of pronouns it does. But if so, it's not because they are pronouns, it's because of some property of pronouns that's different from other forms of address, like "your highness".

Whether or not he has a valid point, simply stating that his example of personal preference not being what matters isn't a pronoun doesn't demonstrate that he's wrong.

 

[Roboramma]

I would hold that It is the same as saying to someone "No I will not call you Graham because you don't look like a Graham to me, I am going to call you Geraldine"

The argument for it not being the same is that pronouns refer to an essential biological fact, which is either female or male and asking someone to use a preferred pronoun which is not one that in English has traditionally been used for biological sex identification is to ask others to state a lie.

Yes, I agree both that your first analogy is interesting and that the argument against it is as you describe.

However unless you have done a genetic test you do not know what a work colleague's biological sex is, until you have objectively identified their biological sex you are in fact saying "No I will not call you "he" because you do not look like a "he" to me, I am going to call you "she""

As a Bayesian I completely disagree with this. We know absolutely nothing with absolute certainty, we should have no credences of 1, but we do have evidence about things and that evidence alters our credences about various facts toward higher or lower levels of confidence. Even a genetic test can't give you a credence of 1. But there are many forms of evidence based on secondary sexual characteristics that can and should shift your credence about people's biological sex toward very high confidences.

I think pretty much everyone would agree that when your confidence isn't very high you should definitely defer to what the person tells you. And furthermore whatever your credence that person A is a male, if they tell you they're female that should shift your credence toward the view that they are, in fact, female.

 

[smartcooky]

I would hold that It is the same as saying to someone "No I will not call you Graham because you don't look like a Graham to me, I am going to call you Geraldine"

"No I will not call you Jamie because you don't look like a Jamie to me, I am going to call you Jamie"

"No I will not call you Rene because you don't look like a Rene to me, I am going to call you Rene"

 

[Darat]

"No I will not call you Jamie because you don't look like a Jamie to me, I am going to call you Jamie"

"No I will not call you Rene because you don't look like a Rene to me, I am going to call you Rene"

 

[arthwollipot]

Speaking as someone who was called some pretty nasty names as a kid, yeah, calling someone else by something that is not their name can be bullying, especially if it is done with intent.

Look - I've said this before in other threads. Misgendering someone once is not a horrible thing to do. You can acknowledge your mistake, apologise, and try to remember next time.

It's when you deliberately and repeatedly misgender someone despite knowing that it is wrong where it crosses the line into bullying.

I think this is a nuance that some people choose not to acknowledge.

 

[Darat]

Herc - you like the hypotheticals, what about this:

There is someone in your accounts department that you were introduced to as Bob a couple of years ago, you don't have much to do with them but occasionally need to speak to them or tell others about something to do with their job. Bob is about 5 foot 7, well built, you can see he has a few messy tattoos, bushy beard but bald on top, wears a wedding ring, they have the obligatory family picture of them with their wife holding a newborn baby and another later photo showing them playing ball with two kids. You've been calling them Bob since you were introduced, when you've had to refer to them with other colleagues you've used "he" and "him" as their pronouns, as does everyone else.

Then one day in the staff room you hear him chatting with a heavily pregnant colleague and Bob is talking to the pregnant colleague about his first pregnancy, doing his best to reassure his pregnant colleague everything will be OK.

In future do you refer to your biological female colleague, Bob, as "she" and "her"?

 

[Darat]

Speaking as someone who was called some pretty nasty names as a kid, yeah, calling someone else by something that is not their name can be bullying, especially if it is done with intent.

Look - I've said this before in other threads. Misgendering someone once is not a horrible thing to do. You can acknowledge your mistake, apologise, and try to remember next time.

It's when you deliberately and repeatedly misgender someone despite knowing that it is wrong where it crosses the line into bullying.

I think this is a nuance that some people choose not to acknowledge.

It also makes me wonder how they manage to function in society without understanding this, it is something most of us learn as a kid.

 

[arthwollipot]

It also makes me wonder how they manage to function in society without understanding this, it is something most of us learn as a kid.

As I said, sometimes very directly.

 

[smartcooky]

You don't understand that some forenames can be given to girls as well as boys? Really?

Jamie Oliver (a male)
Jamie Lee Curtis (a female)

Rene Descartes (a male)
Rene Russo (a female)

It also makes me wonder how they manage to function in society without understanding this, it is something most of us learn as a kid.

When I was a kid, we didn't have males declaring themselves to be females purely on their say so, demanding to use the female toilets, and trying to get into the female sports teams.

 

[Ziggurat]

Neither Thermal not myself have said that.

But Holyoke has