What is fashionable to do in that social group wouldn't seem to have much bearing on his usage ITT. He 'she-ed' her here. So no, i'd disagree that it was a social cue for that audience. It's how he thinks of her. Which is fine, as long as he doesn't spend his time crowing the opposite.
The only society at issue was the company ITT, where he has said utterly hateful things about transpeople. The claim that he was observing a social nicety falls about as flat as you get.
Fair enough. I apologize for the confusion.
Np
It doesn't need to be 'decoupled'. They are very very very much related, so much so that they are sometimes virtually synonymous. Like most stuff on the planet, there are rare exceptions, like when multiplication and division rules sometimes get all ◊◊◊◊◊◊ up when using zero, infinity, and 1, and we have to carve out exceptions.
Sure they can. Gender is the expression of sex roles. It's not binary (men do dis, women do dat). It's not even a spectrum with masculine on one end and feminine on the other. It's some kind of Cartesian coordinate representation, maybe with a z-axis, where cishet tomboys have a range that has overlap with butch lesbians and transmen, all fairly close but distinctly different. How do I represent that more precisely? Don't know, don't care. I can guess right in the overwhelming majority of times, so it works for me. I don't need an oversimplified standard that would make me a total dickhead unless I'm posting on X.
Putting anti-discrimination laws relating to gender in a weird place of irrelevance?
You use the example that i have repeatedly said is the rare exception: it doesn't matter in most social interactions unless you plan to bone the person. Otherwise (medical, prison, competitive athletics aside), I have dead zero interest in other guys' dicks. Managed to go my whole adult life without the slightest interaction with them. Just doesn't matter. But it matters a lot how I interact with people every day, based on their presentation. They could be smooth as a Ken doll down there, as far as I know.
Practical applications will always be disparate to the social experience. Murder, for instance, is illegal. Not really a concern to my everyday life. If someone is going to try to kill me, they will probably do so with no regard to law. So rather than codifying public policy, I'm checking my personal weapons inventory, because the personal interaction is loads more significant than some policy wank's wet dream.
The above should clarify. If you find it unsatisfactory, I'll address whatever you find lacking.
I wholeheartedly agree. That's kind of my point. Any time we go to talk about gender in any meaningful, practical way, we actually end up talking about sex. Every time a heterosexual male is attracted to a transwoman, it's because he mistakenly perceives them as female. Any time we talk about trans rights in public policy, we're actually talking about rights relating to sex. Any time we talk about treating someone like a woman, we're either talking about literally nothing, or else we're talking about something extremely sexist and regressive.
None of the gender expressions ("expressions of sex roles") you're talking about have any practical applications at all. Your definitions of "sex roles" - tomboy, butch lez, etc. - have no real use. As soon as your society moves away from restricting women's participation on account of their sex, this whole notion of meaningful sex roles becomes completely irrelevant.
I have addressed this in the past. Gender identity is a belief system and/or a personal preference. I wholeheartedly support not discriminating against people for their belief system or personal preference. If someone wants to present as their inner concept of a "woman", that shouldn't preclude them from getting a job, buying a home, etc. But there is nothing about gender identity that should entitle anyone to special privileges not enjoyed by other members of their sex (such as the privilege of overriding sex segregation).
My point is exactly that it doesn't matter in any social interaction that isn't about sex.
We have a substantial corpus of public policy, defining what is and isn't murder, various degrees of severity of the act, a number of closely-adjacent acts, and a range of penalties depending on the details and level of involvement in the act.
Well, it seems that he does not accept your 'in depth, explained disagreement'... and nether do I.
Allies do read this stuff. It's what makes them allies.
Ok, you ask if I treat women differently. I do, and have elaborated on this more than once.
You're reading it poorly. He says he does not recall it, and I'm presenting it again.
Behold, my field of ◊◊◊◊◊ is barren
Perhaps you can let us know the next time you hear of one of your "transwoman" friends having a period, or giving birth to a baby, or breastfeeding a baby, or having to undergo a smear test for pre-cursors of cervical cancer, or doing a pregnancy test and getting a positive result... because if they are not capable of experiencing those things, they can never know what it means to be a woman, let alone "live as" one.
Yes, congratulations smartcooky. You've discovered qualia. Bravo!
OK. Why do you treat women differently? Is it because of their gender roles? Or because of their sex? Or is it just habit, and you never actually thought about why?
For multiple reasons. One is that I'm told I have Resting Predator Face, which guys don't much seem bothered by but makes many women uncomfortable. Another is that women tend to wear more restrictive clothing and rock more time-consumingly applied makeup, hair and jewelry, so I'll do the heavy lifting and make things easier for them when possible. Also, I try to generally 'give women a break' and don't ask much of them when given a choice (partially due to being raised by a single mother, and seeing how much my wife juggled when the kids were young- women generally have more to do, from appearances to child rearing). Another is that if someone is going to get their knuckles bloodied, it's better that it be me, as it makes little difference to my appearance but worlds for theirs.
Why does it make women uncomfortable but not men? Is it because of their gender and your gender, or because of their sex and your sex?
You are nicer to women than to men. Why? I mean, your single mother thing tells me part of why, but not the why I asked about. Is it because of their sex, or because of their gender?
Again, why? Because of their sex, or because of their gender?
Not even close. I specifically asked about sex vs. gender, and your response doesn't really tell me. It hints at an answer, but I don't want to assume. I want you to be explicit.
{Eta: Since our genitalia are not normally interacting, I'm going to guess neither, or at least closer to gender? You'd have to ask them, really. I don't think they'd actually be afraid of me raping them when I'm trying to sell them on a kitchen remodel with their husband and teen/20s sons at the table with us. I believe the woman might be more sensitive and perceive aggression, and it makes them uncomfortable, without any literal sex reason. It's a social cue, likely going back millions of years and while it may be rooted in a sex distinction long past, it's just a vibe now, and one I like to defuse. Also: I recall a male gay couple I did a kitchen for long ago. One was very effeminate, and got the 'closer to woman' treatment. They eventually went with my bid specifically because he said I was easy to talk to. So ya, I'm leaning a bit towards gender.}
Sex and gender, as we've discussed repeatedly, are so closely related that they are often interchangable. So I look to how I act around the occasional transwoman I come across (no, I don't run across any Brysons in the wild, but almost exclusively Rep McBrides). I treat them exactly as I do the natal women, who are on that end of the feminine spectrum. Both a female electrician and an EMT I know act like one of the guys, and I (almost, if I'm being honest) treat them as such.
Did I nail it with clarity in the above?
From my point of view, it's one of the things that doesn't matter. Let anyone dance whatever "gendered" part they want. No big deal. No hate from me, for that kind of thing.
Whatever
Approximation is not good enough. Approximation won't allow me to be a fighter pilot or an astronaut or a football star or 25 years old again, no matter how much I might wish any of them to be so. Approximation won't allow a transgender identified male to have a period, or give birth to a baby, or breastfeed. A transgender identified male is not, never was, and can never be female - and if they cannot be female, they can never be a woman. That is a fact of science; a fact that trumps all of their feelings, no matter how strong those feelings might be.
Oh, its a gotcha alright - a conclusive one, and you know it. That is why your only refutation is a poor attempt at mockery, backed up by inane comments that amount to no more than a pathetic handwave.