Acceptance of Gender Diversity

[Robin]

Yes! Now you're getting it.
.

I am puzzled as to why you could think I could be getting it, as opposed to being more confused by it all than ever.

 

[Robin]

We have Category A which means nothing more than that a person has decided to adopt the label Category A.

And Category B which means nothing else besides the fact that a person has decided to adopt the label Category B.

How are Category A and Category B not interchangeable?

 

[Roboramma]

Yes, I accept your understanding of the term. I just think that the poll was intended to capture all interpretations rather than narrowing it down to any specific interpretation. Yours and mine. And Robin's. All wrapped up into a single question. It was made as broad as possible, because the creators of the survey - who are very experienced and skilled surveyors - know that gender means different things to different people. If they had wanted to capture only one interpretation, they would have asked the question differently.

This honestly doesn't make sense to me. I think you and I have similar views on the underlying facts and are only using the word gender differently. Yet we would give opposite answers to the poll question.

Someone else who has entirely opposing views to yours (and mine) would also answer the poll question in the same way that I would.

Given that opposite views would answer the question in the same way, the question hasn't actually told us anything about the views of the respondents.

Here's an analogy to help make what I'm saying more clear: there are two red balls on a table. But because of the colouring of the table, people who are colourblind won't be able to see the balls. A questioner asks four separate people to answer: "How many balls are there on the table."

The first is normally sighted and sees the red balls. He answers: "2".
The second is colourblind and can't see the balls. He answers "0".
The third misunderstood the word "balls" to refer to bowls, so also answers "0".
The fourth misunderstood the question as referring to green balls, but not paying attention to the colours of the balls answers "2".

A second group of respondents are then asked the same question. Similarly 2 of them answer 2 and two answer 0. What, if anything, can we conclude about what the second group saw or thought about the presence of the balls based on their answers?

 

[Darat]

You are saying that there are only two genders, then going on to explain that you actually think that there are more than two genders. Those two statements directly contradict each other - I can't see any way of interpreting them otherwise.



From my point of view it looks like you are defending your right to acknowledge that there are more than two genders by saying "there are only two genders" and that doesn't make sense to me, so I must be severely misinterpreting what you're saying.

Or there are two genders but how those are expressed and defined can vary.

 

[Belz...]

Someone who is male will identify and/or express as male. Someone who is female will identify and/or express as female.

That sounds very circular.

 

[Belz...]

Well here's the thing. You don't really need to know someone else's gender. You just need to know what pronouns they would like you to use, and the best way to find that out is to ask.

Why would you need pronouns? When you talk to someone, you use "you" and the person's name. Or, alternatively, "hey". The third-person pronouns don't get much use there.

No, I strongly feel that I am male.

How can you tell?

It sounds to me like using they/them as a default would be a good policy for you to adopt unless you're sure.

Or we could use the good old way of doing it and be correct 99.5% of the time. Works for me.

 

[Belz...]

Or there are two genders but how those are expressed and defined can vary.

That sounds way too reasonable.

 

[MisAndreG]

http://latex.codecogs.com/gif.latex?P \wedge \neg P



Sounds dodgy, being a contradiction and all.

What does the P stuff mean?

 

[sphenisc]

What does the P stuff mean?

I think it means some pee standing up and some sit down to pee.

 

[Steve]

We're referring to third-person pronouns here.

Thank you.

Yes you have. I've told you my pronouns. Anyway, your lack of experience of the problem is not evidence that it isn't a problem.

That's one reason I've proactively given you mine. I encourage people to offer their pronouns without being asked. But it doesn't always happen.

I have not noticed your pronouns provided in a post. Perhaps I missed it. If so I apologize. I recall that you posted about pronouns in you sig, but I have sigs turned off.

It is true that my lack of experience has nothing to do with it being a problem for some people and I did not present it as such. As an "outsider" and accepting that this is an important issue to some, I am curious about how extensive the problem is. I wonder, for example, if there are communities or groups of people where dealing with this issue is common. Is the issue important only within these groups? Is it an issue that all the complete strangers in the world do not notice and conform to an individual's gender ID, or does the issue apply only to a specific smaller group? It is not at all clear what the extent of the problem actually is.

If two strangers pass me on the street and then start talking about how funny I look I have zero interest in them thinking I look funny and even less interest in the pronouns they use to refer to me. For me those persons do not exist once they are out of my line of sight. Would this situation be of any more interest to a person concerned about how their gender ID is perceived by strangers and which pronouns they subsequently use (assuming that strangers have any interest at all in discussing them)? I suspect not. Which finally brings me back to one of my main questions - when a person is concerned about people correctly understanding their gender ID exactly which people are they concerned about?

Very few people use unconventional pronouns. A lot of unconventional nongendered pronouns have been suggested over the years, and none of them have stuck enough to become universal, or even common. Today, three basic pronouns will get you by in almost all situations: he/him, she/her, and they/them. All of which are extremely easy to understand.

This is confusing to me. The pronouns she/her are pronouns conventionally applied to female, especially for the vast population who spend no time learning the nuances of gender ID. If a person chooses to be identified by female pronouns is this not an indication that they identify as female? If not then presumably that would choose different pronouns. How can it be that a person does not identify as female but still chooses to identify using female pronouns? They would then be satisfied with people identifying them as something they are expressly saying they are not.

The problem with using the pronouns that match outward appearance is that pronouns do not always match outward appearance. There are women who present as men, but use she/her. And there are people who don't strongly present as male or female at all. This is Dr Meg-John Barker. What pronouns would you use for this person?

Situation dependent.

If I was walking down the street with a friend and Dr Barker, a stranger, was passing in the other direction I would might say something like "I like that dude's hat".

If I had heard Dr. Barker speak and taken vocal cues then I might, to a third party, say something like "She is an interesting person". (If, in fact, her voice had female characteristics - I just don't know)

Having read the linked article I know Dr. Barker's preferred pronouns and I would likely use them in talking to a third person who also knew the preferred pronouns.

The pronouns them/they/their can be rather awkward when used as singular in casual conversation particularly to a person who has no idea why they are being used. I would probably find it most convenient to use the name Dr. Barker.

In most cases you won't get into any trouble by assuming pronouns. In most cases. But misgendering someone can cause real distress, and it is better not to. Most people who care about pronouns will thank you for asking.

If I was having a private discussion about a third person, that third person would never know the pronouns I used and no distress would be caused. Besides, an incorrect pronoun is rather inoffensive compared to referring to the person as "that asshat", which is also not uncommon when discussing a third party .

 

[Steve]

Or there are two genders but how those are expressed and defined can vary.

That sounds way too reasonable.

 

[MisAndreG]

I think it means some pee standing up and some sit down to pee.

It’s a logical notation but I don’t know what he is saying. P and not P to answer “what you think your gender is?”...

 

[Belz...]

It’s a logical notation but I don’t know what he is saying. P and not P to answer “what you think your gender is?”...

I think he's just saying that it's either one or the other. In other words, a binary.

 

[caveman1917]

http://latex.codecogs.com/gif.latex?P \vee \neg P is a logical axiom/theorem (the law of the excluded middle) therefor its negation http://latex.codecogs.com/gif.latex?P \wedge \neg P is a logical contradiction. I was pointing out the meaninglessness of defining "gender" as "your gender is whatever you think it is" by making my "gender" a logical contradiction.

 

[Belz...]

http://latex.codecogs.com/gif.latex?P \vee \neg P is a logical axiom/theorem (the law of the excluded middle) therefor its negation http://latex.codecogs.com/gif.latex?P \wedge \neg P is a logical contradiction. I was pointing out the meaninglessness of defining "gender" as "your gender is whatever you think it is" by making my "gender" a logical contradiction.

Well, I got it wrong.

 

[caveman1917]

Well, I got it wrong.

Sorry, I thought it was rather obvious.

 

[Belz...]

Sorry, I thought it was rather obvious.

Maybe to smart people, but I'm an idiot.

 

[MisAndreG]

http://latex.codecogs.com/gif.latex?P \vee \neg P is a logical axiom/theorem (the law of the excluded middle) therefor its negation http://latex.codecogs.com/gif.latex?P \wedge \neg P is a logical contradiction. I was pointing out the meaninglessness of defining "gender" as "your gender is whatever you think it is" by making my "gender" a logical contradiction.

Ahh, thank you.

 

[Thor 2]

http://latex.codecogs.com/gif.latex?P \wedge \neg P



Sounds dodgy, being a contradiction and all.

What does the P stuff mean?

I think it means some pee standing up and some sit down to pee.

http://latex.codecogs.com/gif.latex?P \vee \neg P is a logical axiom/theorem (the law of the excluded middle) therefor its negation http://latex.codecogs.com/gif.latex?P \wedge \neg P is a logical contradiction. I was pointing out the meaninglessness of defining "gender" as "your gender is whatever you think it is" by making my "gender" a logical contradiction.

I liked sphenisc's explanation best.

 

[p0lka]

Well, I got it wrong.

you didn't,
it literally translates to 'p or not p', a binary choice. Their point was that it excluded the middle.
They're correct, 'p or not p' versus 'p or not p' doesn't make a lot of logical sense when there's a middle that isn't p.
EDIT:
damn, i missed the 'and', sorry.