"Misgendering" is now a federal offense

[Thermal]

No, increasingly we're not being asked. We're being told. Redefining words and then pretending it's always meant something different than what we know it is is quite literally Orwellian.

I know meanings change or drift over time, but this feels quite different.

Agreed that they are not being smooth about it. But it's not really a new idea. It's been bouncing around for decades. It could be argued that it's us who has been so resistant that they are now forced to sledgehammer.

I'm more than willing to accommodate the "not strictly bio sex anymore" angle, as long as I don't have to sit here like an idiot saying women have penises.

 

[Donal]

I think you're projecting. As far as I can tell, all the spittle-flecked rage in this discussion is coming from the other side. Just count the number of asterisks in recent posts.

You and your very manly men who aren't affraid of anything are the ones talking about law suits, misunderstanding the First Amendment, failing at reading comprehension, and making threats civli war.

 

[Donal]

No, increasingly we're not being asked. We're being told. Redefining words and then pretending it's always meant something different than what we know it is is quite literally Orwellian.

I know meanings change or drift over time, but this feels quite different.

There really needs to be a new word for when reactionaries misuse "Orwellian" to fit their agenda.

 

[theprestige]

Agreed that they are not being smooth about it. But it's not really a new idea. It's been bouncing around for decades. It could be argued that it's us who has been so resistant that they are now forced to sledgehammer.

I'm more than willing to accommodate the "not strictly bio sex anymore" angle, as long as I don't have to sit here like an idiot saying women have penises.

The problem I have is that gender decoupled from sex is functionally meaningless. Even preferred pronouns exist only to tell you that someone wants you to pretend to perceive them as a sex other than the biological sex you perceive them as.

 

[Donal]

Fat is a judgement.

Fat is, but overwieght and obese aren't. Those are biologival medical terms that don't specifically apply when people use the term "fat". "Fat' is generally based on social norms at the time. So, yo ustubled upon a perfect example.

So is ugly, and I wouldn't call anybody that either.

not to their face, it appears

Man/woman on the other hand is a FACT.

No, male/female is a FACT. And even that has some grey areas.

We're being asked to deny reality.

No, you're being asked to be courtious. and when that fails, you're being told to stop harrassing people.

I strongly suspect most of those going along with this nonsense agree with me on this (including here), but are absolutely terrified of being considered a bigot.

"I'm speaking for the silent majority!" says person who neither silent nor in the majority.

 

[Donal]

There are trans women who insist on being called "she/her" or "they" but have full facial hair or mustache. You cannot expect me to call them anything but "he/him".

There are biological women with facial hair. Like, full beards.

 

[Donal]

The problem I have is that gender decoupled from sex is functionally meaningless. Even preferred pronouns exist only to tell you that someone wants you to pretend to perceive them as a sex other than the biological sex you perceive them as.

Unless you are trying to have intercourse with every person you meet, what does that matter?

 

[Thermal]

The problem I have is that gender decoupled from sex is functionally meaningless.

Agreed.

Even preferred pronouns exist only to tell you that someone wants you to pretend to perceive them as a sex other than the biological sex you perceive them as.

And to "perceive" them as another sex is unfair. "Treat" them as the other sex, I'm more okay with, right up to the locker room doors.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Unless you are trying to have intercourse with every person you meet, what does that matter?

Why does it matter to them?

"Why does it matter" can't flow only one way.

Transgenderism has to mean SOMETHING. It can't mean something to them but nothing to the rest of us.

(That's not exactly the phrasing, hard to put into words, fair?)

 

[Donal]

If I were at work, I would act in accordance with my employer's policy, because that's part of the job. I do not have freedom of speech when I am on the clock.

Students are not in general employees. They retain freedom of speech rights. So I don't know why you think this scenario is relevant.

Wait until you discover places like Liberty University and BYU. Way more free speech supression going on there.

But, here's an hypothetical: If a group of started chasing around a Jewish student, screaming anti-Semitic slurs and Holocaust denial, would you support their right to do so?

 

[Donal]

Why does it matter to them?

Well, besides the well documented history of harassment and exlusision...it's just courtesy. Why is that so difficult?

"Why does it matter" can't flow only one way.

Why not? These aren't 2 equal sides...unless you're trying to "both sides" this.

Transgenderism has to mean SOMETHING.

Yes, most words in the English language do.

It can't mean something to them but nothing to the rest of us.

Why? It's not your life. If your friend likes to be called "Bob", do yo uinsist on calling him "Robert"?

 

[Thermal]

You seriously didn't see the beauty of using Richard for that example?

 

[theprestige]

And to "perceive" them as another sex is unfair. "Treat" them as the other sex, I'm more okay with, right up to the locker room doors.

The way I see it, the only times you'd be treating a trans person as the opposite sex are the times when biological sex actually matters. Which are exactly the times when you shouldn't treat trans people as the opposite sex.

Mount Holyoke College desperately needs to figure out what kind of a school it actually is. Is it a sex-segregated school, in which case it shouldn't be admitting trans and nonbinary male students in the first place? Or is it a gender-segregated school, in which case what even is their definition of gender, and how do they know if an applicant qualifies?

If the student newspaper publishes an editorial saying that without a clear and coherent definition of gender, the College's policy on misgendering is clown-ass nonsense, are they exercising their free speech rights? Speaking truth to power? Or are they just mocking the policy in defiance of the policy against mocking the policy?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Well, besides the well documented history of harassment and exlusision...it's just courtesy. Why is that so difficult?



Why not? These aren't 2 equal sides...unless you're trying to "both sides" this.



Yes, most words in the English language do.



Why? It's not your life. If your friend likes to be called "Bob", do yo uinsist on calling him "Robert"?

Those are all none answers.

Those are "Why did you pick the left door?" answered with "I HAVE A RIGHT TO PICK WHATEVER DOOR I WANT!" I'm not questioning your right to pick the door, I'm asking why. If you can't grasp that that isn't the same question let me know now so I won't keep trying.

This "I don't have to prove nothing to nobody" chip on the shoulder is not doing anyone good when people are out there honestly asking for the why, not challenging the "Do you have a right to?"

 

[Thermal]

The way I see it, the only times you'd be treating a trans person as the opposite sex are the times when biological sex actually matters. Which are exactly the times when you shouldn't treat trans people as the opposite sex.

Mount Holyoke College desperately needs to figure out what kind of a school it actually is. Is it a sex-segregated school, in which case it shouldn't be admitting trans and nonbinary male students in the first place? Or is it a gender-segregated school, in which case what even is their definition of gender, and how do they know if an applicant qualifies?

If the student newspaper publishes an editorial saying that without a clear and coherent definition of gender, the College's policy on misgendering is clown-ass nonsense, are they exercising their free speech rights? Speaking truth to power? Or are they just mocking the policy in defiance of the policy against mocking the policy?

Damned good questions for Holyoke, and anyone else gender lecturing, to answer.

 

[Lithrael]

"I don't have a reason I can articulate" is fine with me as a genuine answer to a lot of questions about personal feelings and reactions, but it makes some people get really chafed. Typically if I try to invoke it over something involving genuinely obscure subconcious thought processes, the other party will say something like 'fine but if I punch you in the face, and you ask what was that for, I'll say I don't have a reason I can articulate, and you better be ok with that!' and I will figure they aren't at all interested in trying to be kind to me about whatever my complaint was.

"why did you pick this song" "I like it" "how could you possibly like it" look I don't know how to explain and I don't appreciate the implication that I don't genuinely like it.

"how could that possibly hurt your feelings" look...

I'm gonna lay this one at the feet of whoever told people, that someone expressing discomfort to you over your words or actions, is attacking you, and you better show them how WRONG they are, instead of, I don't know, comforting them or something fake and gay like that.

 

[Thermal]

If you can't articulate the problem, then don't articulate the solution, because it doesn't mean anything other than stating a wish for other people to obey that you can't even justify.

 

[Lithrael]

I don't know man, some things are ok to just concede. Not everything is a big enough deal to require justification.

 

[sackett]

How many people are transgender? Not a very great percentage of the population, I would surmise.

Why is the state of being transgender of so much concern as to make it a political matter?

Surely this country and the world face greater, and graver, concerns than this? Can't ordinary decency and compassion govern our behavior toward a tiny number of poor creatures like these?

And where decency fails, aren't there long-established laws to protect individual rights?

I said "poor creatures" because they stir my pity.

 

[theprestige]

I don't know man, some things are ok to just concede. Not everything is a big enough deal to require justification.

A reasonable enough philosophy of life, but are these platitudes connected to any of the observations and arguments arising from the discussion of the thread topic?