Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[Acleron]

To be fair, "Ms." was adopted specifically because of privacy issues. In other words, my marital status isn't any of your business, unless I choose to share it with you. "Mr." is generic to all males, married or not, so it made sense to invent an honorific that granted similar anonymity to females. I find it useful in business correspondence where I do not know the marital status of the person I am communicating with, and it would be rude to presume, one way or another.

The fact that there isn't a similar honorific in French does not take away the value from the term in English.

After trying to be polite by addressing anyone female but of unknown marital status 'Ms', I received a few very indignant letters from married women. I gave up.

 

[westprog]

To be fair, "Ms." was adopted specifically because of privacy issues. In other words, my marital status isn't any of your business, unless I choose to share it with you. "Mr." is generic to all males, married or not, so it made sense to invent an honorific that granted similar anonymity to females. I find it useful in business correspondence where I do not know the marital status of the person I am communicating with, and it would be rude to presume, one way or another.

The fact that there isn't a similar honorific in French does not take away the value from the term in English.

There's no inherent problems with neologisms. We have more of them every day. It's a matter of who decides who's in charge of making people use them. It's very reasonable to ask to be Ms Hokulele. It's not fair to insist that other people use terms that they aren't comfortable with (and I understand that Hokulele is not proposing that).

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Simple. Look at public bathrooms. Which does a transperson use. A transman is not a man so why use the mens room?
.

Yes they are, unless you are referring to an individual who used to be a man and is now a woman. Then they are a woman.

I have to say, and maybe this is my (correctly used here) privilege shining through, but why on earth do we have to refer to whether someone is trans, let alone that they are not?

I am a man. I was born genetically male, and I identify as one. Simon Bloggs was born Sally Bloggs, but identifies as a man. Once effort is made to rectify this by becoming the man they identify as, they are also a man, and are for all intents and purposes a man. Similarly I am a white man and Samuel L Jackson is a black man, but I would only ever mention that if I were describing him physically, otherwise I don't care whether he or anyone else is black, white, Asian or whatever. Similarly, if you self identify as a man, as far as I'm concerned you are a man. The same applies equally to women.

I get that there's a lot of prejudice around and for that we need to keep the terms and so on, but as someone who couldn't give a crap whether you (generic not specific) are trans or not, do I still have to make the effort to refer to you as trans and myself as cis?

 

[Hokulele]

After trying to be polite by addressing anyone female but of unknown marital status 'Ms', I received a few very indignant letters from married women. I gave up.

Heh, people will be upset by anything, so no matter what form of address you use, it will end up in indignation on occasion. I generally restrict my usage to professional situations, and haven't had any issues there. Yet.

There's no inherent problems with neologisms. We have more of them every day. It's a matter of who decides who's in charge of making people use them. It's very reasonable to ask to be Ms Hokulele. It's not fair to insist that other people use terms that they aren't comfortable with (and I understand that Hokulele is not proposing that).

While I understand that your comment is based primarily on the silliness that is currently the A+ forums, I do think there is a general point where people's comfort level will be influenced by cultural shifts. I do not see a problem with trying to encourage that sort of shifting, for example, by asking the powers-that-be to include an option for "Ms." on forms. In a sense, this could be seen as insisting they (the PtB) use a term they may not wish to use, but I see it as adding an option, not as insisting everyone choose that option.

 

[Badger3k]

Yes they are, unless you are referring to an individual who used to be a man and is now a woman. Then they are a woman.

I have to say, and maybe this is my (correctly used here) privilege shining through, but why on earth do we have to refer to whether someone is trans, let alone that they are not?

I am a man. I was born genetically male, and I identify as one. Simon Bloggs was born Sally Bloggs, but identifies as a man. Once effort is made to rectify this by becoming the man they identify as, they are also a man, and are for all intents and purposes a man. Similarly I am a white man and Samuel L Jackson is a black man, but I would only ever mention that if I were describing him physically, otherwise I don't care whether he or anyone else is black, white, Asian or whatever. Similarly, if you self identify as a man, as far as I'm concerned you are a man. The same applies equally to women.

I get that there's a lot of prejudice around and for that we need to keep the terms and so on, but as someone who couldn't give a crap whether you (generic not specific) are trans or not, do I still have to make the effort to refer to you as trans and myself as cis?

You have to remember that for some, trans-people are icky, and if they are woman and a transfemale who used to be a man is in the restroom....ewww....icky pervert! They can't see beyond their disgust to see it doesn't make a ****s bit of difference. It's the same kind of thinking that has some guys going "I don't want to shower with a gay guy 'cause he'd be watching my package".

Unless there's some medical or biological need to specify, just go with what you identify as. I'd say the plumbing, but that leaves some in the process of the surgery kinda in a bit of a lurch. Maybe that's ok, maybe not. You get the same issue with the self-identification. But, so what. A little uncertainty is ok to deal with.

 

[westprog]

While I understand that your comment is based primarily on the silliness that is currently the A+ forums, I do think there is a general point where people's comfort level will be influenced by cultural shifts. I do not see a problem with trying to encourage that sort of shifting, for example, by asking the powers-that-be to include an option for "Ms." on forms. In a sense, this could be seen as insisting they (the PtB) use a term they may not wish to use, but I see it as adding an option, not as insisting everyone choose that option.

Exactly so. That's very different from regarding everyone who changes her name when she marries and likes to be called Mrs a gender traitor.

Liberation means people get to do what they want - not what someone else thinks they should want.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

I get that there's a lot of prejudice around and for that we need to keep the terms and so on, but as someone who couldn't give a crap whether you (generic not specific) are trans or not, do I still have to make the effort to refer to you as trans and myself as cis?

Came to say this. Unless the conversation is explicitly about switching genders, what does it matter what a person's gender used to be?

You have to remember that for some, trans-people are icky, and if they are woman and a transfemale who used to be a man is in the restroom....ewww....icky pervert! They can't see beyond their disgust to see it doesn't make a ****s bit of difference. It's the same kind of thinking that has some guys going "I don't want to shower with a gay guy 'cause he'd be watching my package".

And insisting that being a trans-person is such a big deal that you want everyone else to adopt similar nomenclature and be cis-persons will help combat this prejudice... how?

 

[Badger3k]

Came to say this. Unless the conversation is explicitly about switching genders, what does it matter what a person's gender used to be?


And insisting that being a trans-person is such a big deal that you want everyone else to adopt similar nomenclature and be cis-persons will help combat this prejudice... how?

Exactly - that's the part I don't understand. It's the underpants gnomes all over again. Convince people to use certain phrases....?....everyone farts rainbows and unicorns.

It seems like some kind of mental trickle-down theory. If people keep using them, it will somehow make people sympathetic to them, somehow. Magic, I think. Maybe leprechauns are involved as well.

 

[Savant]

Came to say this. Unless the conversation is explicitly about switching genders, what does it matter what a person's gender used to be?

Normally, friend Beelzebuddy, it doesn't. In a forum environment, where trans issues are sometimes raised, I might mention it to provide insight or credence to a point I am making. In my day-to-day life, it rarely comes up. Since the forum in question (A+) seems to be big on members being victimized and oppressed, it seems they want to be sure to put gender status front and center at all times for maximum sympathy and to legitimize being a complete ass to anyone who disagrees with them.

And insisting that being a trans-person is such a big deal that you want everyone else to adopt similar nomenclature and be cis-persons will help combat this prejudice... how?

Touching on this point, I see no reason you would need to, save that it is a handy term for defining your status as comfortable with your birth gender - were the question to arise. As to combating prejudice, I don't see it either. It seems to be yet another term of derision by the charming people who have turned "middle aged" - among other words - into an insult.

There is a lot of prejudice against trans folks in the world, I've experienced my share, but throwing insults at people who would probably be completely fine with your gender status - if not helpful and kind to you - is asinine. Please do believe the forumites at A+ are as representative of the transgender community as they are the greater Atheist community.

 

[Walter Ego]

For the last page or two this thread is starting to sound like the A+ forum with the exception that nobody has been banned yet. Could someone alert the mods?

 

[devnull]

For the last page or two this thread is starting to sound like the A+ forum with the exception that nobody has been banned yet. Could someone alert the mods?

That's it son. Banned.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Is that a real thing? I've never seen a trans public bathroom, do such things exist?

Again, I have no problem with anyone using whatever bathroom they like. I've been in places with unisex toilets and it never phased me. I'm there to expel waste, not meet new people.

Well people get harassed or arrested for using a public bathroom so it is a real issue.

 

[ponderingturtle]

There are gender issues everywhere, all the time. It's only inside academia and politics that periodically renaming things is considered progress toward any actual solutions.

I don't think this is considered by very many people to be progress, but you need the language to discuss such issues. This isn't renaming, this is just naming.

What was the word for cisman before this? Nontransman?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Yes they are, unless you are referring to an individual who used to be a man and is now a woman. Then they are a woman.

I have to say, and maybe this is my (correctly used here) privilege shining through, but why on earth do we have to refer to whether someone is trans, let alone that they are not?

Because sometimes people need or want to specify this condition. Having two terms is useful then instead of a term and a negation of that term.

 

[ponderingturtle]

You have to remember that for some, trans-people are icky, and if they are woman and a transfemale who used to be a man is in the restroom....ewww....icky pervert! They can't see beyond their disgust to see it doesn't make a ****s bit of difference. It's the same kind of thinking that has some guys going "I don't want to shower with a gay guy 'cause he'd be watching my package".

Unless there's some medical or biological need to specify, just go with what you identify as. I'd say the plumbing, but that leaves some in the process of the surgery kinda in a bit of a lurch. Maybe that's ok, maybe not. You get the same issue with the self-identification. But, so what. A little uncertainty is ok to deal with.

Also many transmen do not have genital reconstruction as it has does not have a terribly high rate of sexual function.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Exactly - that's the part I don't understand. It's the underpants gnomes all over again. Convince people to use certain phrases....?....everyone farts rainbows and unicorns.

It seems like some kind of mental trickle-down theory. If people keep using them, it will somehow make people sympathetic to them, somehow. Magic, I think. Maybe leprechauns are involved as well.

Just like the switch from negro to colored ended racism.

I don't think very many people think that words change people like that. But discussing issues can, and to discuss these issues you need a functioning language. So using say male and transmale as the two classes does clearly deny transmen the status of male.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Because sometimes people need or want to specify this condition.

Outside of discussing trans issues specifically, why would they?

Again, I could be completely missing the point here, but I don't understand why someone who is trans would bring it up in any discussions that were not about them being trans or about trans issues.

If you are a trans woman and just want society to recognise you as a woman and treat you as such without any additional baggage from being trans, why would you mention you are trans unless it's specifically the point of the conversation?


Actually, not sure the last bit is worth the can of worms.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

Well people get harassed or arrested for using a public bathroom so it is a real issue.

Maybe so, but it seems like a different issue entirely.

Unless you are proposing separate trans bathrooms or something? Even then there would be no need to have a cis bathroom label.

I don't see how trans man denies them the status of man any more than white man, rich man, fat man or stupid man does.

 

[WillyWonka]

To be fair, "Ms." was adopted specifically because of privacy issues. In other words, my marital status isn't any of your business, unless I choose to share it with you. "Mr." is generic to all males, married or not, so it made sense to invent an honorific that granted similar anonymity to females. I find it useful in business correspondence where I do not know the marital status of the person I am communicating with, and it would be rude to presume, one way or another.

The fact that there isn't a similar honorific in French does not take away the value from the term in English.

My point was not against 'Ms'; I use it all the time in correspondence. It is a term which has a place. My issue is with the term "Madelle" which did not have a reason to exist. Generally, "Madame" is used for women either married or not. If I use the term "Mademoiselle" on a 50yo women, it would be equivalent as using 'spinster' in English.

 

[Diogenes]

For the last page or two this thread is starting to sound like the A+ forum with the exception that nobody has been banned yet. Could someone alert the mods?

Just missing the terms/phrases "misogynist" "tone troll" "concern troll" "check your privilege" "bad faith"...and a ton of cussin' to get there all the way.