Moderated Using wrong pronouns= violence??

[tyr_13]

You have no way of knowing this, even statistically.

Why? What factors are unknowable enough that we can't establish this statistically?

I'm going to need to see your math on this. The trans women I've met in person are generally non-passing or else totally stealth, but I've no way of knowing the ratio of those who pass to those who do not.

I am having a bitch of a time formatting the Bayes Theorem correctly on this forum. I'm sure there are calculators online for it though.

If we take that the 'test accuracy rate' for (the general) you being able to tell who is transgender to be 99%, which is in and of itself absurdly generous given how many people are sure demonstrably cisgender women are transgender, with the rate of adults being transgender as being between 0.004 and 0.006, then the 'true positive' rate (the probability of A given B) is going to be between 0.30 and .333. Which means the 'false positive' rate is going to be the remaining.

I need to you to back up a second here. Do you understand that when I say "butch women" I'm talking about cisgender females who happen to dress and act in stereotypically masculine ways? Whether you are using pronouns to denote gender identity or sex at birth, the butch women are firmly in the "she/her" camp, at least until they decide to stop identifying as women.

Unless those steroetpyically masculine markers are enough for you to believe they are trans women, as you have maintained. You claim that their word, their self-id, isn't enough for you to use she/her pronouns unless they meet your level of perception to 'pass' as cis women. That your threshold for what they need to do to 'pass' doesn't include 'not driving motorcycles' doesn't actually negate this.

Do me a favor and leave the mind reading act to cranks like Uri Geller.

It isn't mind-reading, it's just word reading. I get you don't like the paraphrase, but that's essentially what you're arguing you are right to do.

 

[Thermal]

No, be specific.

ETA: Look, the whole context here is that you can tell my "apparent sex" by looking at my picture. How can you tell my sex by looking at this picture? Is it there beard? Trans man can have beards.

The answer to your question was right there in the part of my post you took the extra time to snip out.

One runs with the best evidence one has. Your avatar shows what appears to be an adult male. Without the beard, it would still appear to be that of an adult male. Are you saying you can only gather reliable sex information from facial hair? That's weird.

And as I already said, anyone can costume up (chemically, surgically, or theatrically) and be passable, and fool people. A trans man with a beard may or may not look convincing. Benny Hill may or may not look convincing in drag. It doesn't change what they are.

 

[Thermal]

I'm pretty sure my genitals are not visible in that picture and the resolution is no where near where it would need to be to view my DNA or measure my bone or brain structures. There is nothing in that picture that provides evidence of my sex.

What it does is provide evidence of my conformity to the socially constructed male gender norm. I have a beard. I'm wearing a ball cap and a t-shirt. I appear to have very short hair. These are gender norms,anot exclusive sexual traits.

Again with the vascillating. If gender (as I am led to believe) is how you think of yourself in terms of role/societal norms, then t-shirts mean nothing, nor does a cap or even short hair. Both sexes sport these. Coupled with a usually male facial structure and beard, I would assume you were male unless I got better evidence to the contrary.

Arthwollipot has made a repeated point that gender presentation is not relevant anyway. We all know women who look, act and dress like men, but identify as women, and appear to be women despite the male-ish look.

 

[theprestige]

How would you know the difference?

When someone tells you they have preferred pronouns, that's how you know they're talking about gender identity rather than biological sex.

ETA: IOW, if I were to say "I am a man", you would accept that if you assumed that I am a cis-man, but you wouldn't accept that if you assumed I am a trans-man. The validity of my self-identification is based purely on whether or not it confirms your bias.

The only people who "need" preferred pronouns are people who are unhappy with their biological sex, and hope (believe?) that dismissing it in favor of some vague, functionally meaningless idea of "gender" will help them with that problem.

Which, if it's a serious problem for them, they should probably seek professional help, rather than just demanding everyone else pretend their biological sex is other than it is.

And, if it's not a serious problem, who *****' cares? Nobody's too worried about not validating a furry's fursona. Nobody is ate up about the possibility of a theist committing suicide if you don't play along with their contrafactual paradigm. Nobody thinks a conspiracy theorist's inability to construct a coherent narrative about their theory is a feature that should be respected.

The preferred pronoun position in this thread is that you must ignore the evidence of your own senses, and (pretend to) adopt someone else's self-image s as your own image of them, or else they'll kill themselves. In any other circumstance, we'd recoil from the thought of validating that paradigm, and urgently counsel mental health treatment of some kind.

Earlier, arth asked what made me so special, in my belief that I am entitled to uphold my own world view over the one demanded of me by others. My question is, what makes the purveyors of preferred pronouns so special? Why are they more special than furries, or therians, or Emperor Norton?

 

[Upchurch]

'

The answer to your question was right there in the part of my post you took the extra time to snip out.

I snipped it because you were getting less specific.

Without the beard, it would still appear to be that of an adult male. Are you saying you can only gather reliable sex information from facial hair? That's weird.

I'm saying you have no reliable sex information, including the facial hair.

It doesn't change what they are.

And how can you know what they are? You say things like adult biological male, but you haven't identified anything that specifically indicates that.

You can't. Without specific biological information about a person, you aren't evaluating their sex, you can only evaluate which socially constructed gender norm you believe they most closely conform with.

 

[Upchurch]

When someone tells you they have preferred pronouns, that's how you know they're talking about gender identity rather than biological sex.

Except this completely disregards the quickly-becoming-a-cliché situations where culture warriors misgender cis-women who don't conform well to female gender norms and won't all them to go into women's restrooms. I've got a friend who was the victim of that particular culture war idiocy, and just happened to be lucky enough to be in a bar where the owner knew her and nearly kicked the culture warrior out.

But if you completely ignore the data that doesn't fit your theory, I'm sure it's very convincing.

 

[Thermal]

Sure, but you're basically never in a place to use 'objective' sex anyway.

I think there is some 'confusion' with those who insist that self-id and the distinction between sex and gender are prescriptive models of language when they are in reality simply descriptive.

You're not using objective ID. People almost never do or even can. They're using gender, not sex. I'd argue gender is the better, polite, and only realistic way to go regardless.

There was a woman on the rescue squad I used to be on, who wore the same uniform as I did, no makeup (when on call), and shoulder length hair pulled back in a ponytail, virtually the same style as I wore when my hair was long. Neither I nor anyone else was confused about her sex or even gender. It has little to do with presentation, unless you are going over the top with disguises.

I think the consequences are different, but there often are still social consequences for rudely changing the subject IRL, and they also don't really count as 'being silenced'. You can bring it up in a different thread here, or a different space/time IRL.

Or you can be suspended/banned. Forum rules don't really analogies well to real world interactions.

But you're also dodging why it should even be a rule here. Why should it be? Does that at all apply to meatspace too?

It can, of course. But it falls under rule 0, which basically doesn't exist IRL, whi h is why rule 0, 11, and 12 are the most frequent violations here. They are normal interactions in meatspace.

I'm also not a flaming douchebag behind someone's back about their pronouns. What people, theprestige and d4m10n argue is that it isn't even being a flaming douchebag to do it to their face.

Maybe I've fallen behind, but I thought they've both said they would comply with a sexually inconsistent pronoun when in the presence of that person?

Which means you have the same objections to the attack helicopter reasoning theprestige used. Great! We agree.

Attack helicopter is obviously meant to be hyperbolic and facetious. Put it this way: I don't think you can be trans gender. You are just whatever gender you feel like. You definitely can be trans sexual, which is not the sex you actually are.

 

[Upchurch]

Let's say someone was shown pictures of male and female faces, everyone with a middle-of-the-gender-road haircut, no makeup, same neutral expression on their face; that is, remove all gender-norm identifiers. If that person chose the males and females at a high rate of accuracy, that would mean that they are doing so not on the basis of gender norms, but on the basis of biological differences in the appearance of male and female faces.

It would mean that they have a high rate of evaluating biological differences in the absence of gender-norm identifiers. It does not mean they would necessarily be as accurate in more real-world situations when gender-norm identifiers are present.

What I think happens is that gender norms and biological sex differences both play a role in IDing, say, a stranger on the street.

You may think what you like. It's not evidence of anything other than that you have an opinion.

 

[Thermal]

'
I snipped it because you were getting less specific.


I'm saying you have no reliable sex information, including the facial hair.

Yet I'll bet I am right, because the "unreliable" evidence runs well north of 95% accurate, IME.

And how can you know what they are? You say things like adult biological male, but you haven't identified anything that specifically indicates that.

You can't. Without specific biological information about a person, you aren't evaluating their sex, you can only evaluate which socially constructed gender norm you believe they most closely conform with.

Admittedly, a small avatar pic can be misleading, lacking enough information. But overwhelmingly, it's like really easy to tell the difference between a man and a woman in real life. I don't look for "gender" clues. I observe sex characteristics.

 

[Paul2]

It would mean that they have a high rate of evaluating biological differences in the absence of gender-norm identifiers. It does not mean they would necessarily be as accurate in more real-world situations when gender-norm identifiers are present.


You may think what you like. It's not evidence of anything other than that you have an opinion.

I was just looking at a link from PubMed about how males and females can be identified just by their noses. Foreheads, eyebrows, skin texture, chin/jaw also help that identification.

People are remarkably accurate (approaching ceiling) at deciding whether faces are male or female, even when cues from hair style, makeup, and facial hair are minimised."

 

[Upchurch]

I don't look for "gender" clues. I observe sex characteristics.

And yet, somehow, you can't actually articulate what those sex characteristics are.

 

[Thermal]

And yet, somehow, you can't actually articulate what those sex characteristics are.

As Paul2 notes, facial structure and body...proportion, let's say. 100% reliable? Of course not. Nothing much is. Better than 95%, or 1 in 20? Je le crois.

 

[theprestige]

And yet, somehow, you can't actually articulate what those sex characteristics are.

Yeah, because he's a human being, not an alien space robot. It turns out that humans suck ass at visually determining sex or identifying individual faces ... in a corvid population. But in a human population? Humans are really good at that task. Like, really good. It's not a question of being able to spell it out. It's a question of knowing. When it comes to other humans, humans just know.

(Kind of like how humans don't have to do a bunch of math to calculate how to catch a ball. They just know. I don't see you demanding that a goalie show his work, to justify his claim that he's really good at goaltending.)

Again, the whole reason "preferred" pronouns exist is because humans know what your sex is. That's why the contrafactual pronouns have to be announced.

 

[Upchurch]

Yeah, because he's a human being, not an alien space robot. It turns out that humans suck ass at visually determining sex or identifying individual faces ... in a corvid population. But in a human population? Humans are really good at that task. Like, really good.

Except when they really, really aren't.

Again, the whole reason "preferred" pronouns exist is because humans know what your sex is.

Preferred pronouns exist because English speakers, especially, have confused gender and sex for a long time and there has been a greater social acceptance of trans gender folks in the recent few decades. In fact, it is only the recent culture war moral panic that caused any real backlash in the last, oh, 10 years or so?

 

[p0lka]

I often use pronouns to refer to people without any idea of their gender identity, e.g. "Wow, that guy shouldn't be driving his diesel truck here inside the maintenance hangar," or "Damn that lady looks fit in her sundress." I'm just assigning pronouns based on apparent sex, without hardly thinking about it. You say these pronouns may be incorrect but I'd say they are doing what they are supposed to do, even if the cowboy in the truck sees herself as a cowgirl and the lady in the sundress sees themself as non-binary.

Sent from my Pronoun Decanter using Tapatalk

That's interesting. I do that to point out who I'm talking about, ie 'that guy' or 'that girl' but then I use 'they as the pronoun without thinking about it. That guy shouldn't be driving their truck etc.

 

[Paul2]

As Paul2 notes, facial structure and body...proportion, let's say. 100% reliable? Of course not. Nothing much is. Better than 95%, or 1 in 20? Je le crois.

The numbers are presumably in the PubMed articles I linked to, but the one abstract did say, "People are remarkably accurate (approaching ceiling). . . ."

 

[p0lka]

'
I snipped it because you were getting less specific.


I'm saying you have no reliable sex information, including the facial hair.


And how can you know what they are? You say things like adult biological male, but you haven't identified anything that specifically indicates that.

You can't. Without specific biological information about a person, you aren't evaluating their sex, you can only evaluate which socially constructed gender norm you believe they most closely conform with.

If I could hear your voice I think I could narrow it down to either male, camp male or trans, depending on what I hear.

 

[theprestige]

Except when they really, really aren't.

Which is quite rare, and not at all relevant to this controversy.

Like I said, this controversy would be a lot different if it were actually about androgynes fighting to have their biological sex accurately referenced in third-person pronouns.

Preferred pronouns exist because English speakers, especially, have confused gender and sex for a long time and there has been a greater social acceptance of trans gender folks in the recent few decades. In fact, it is only the recent culture war moral panic that caused any real backlash in the last, oh, 10 years or so?

There is no confusion, except on the part of those who believe gender exists as a practical matter, apart from sex.

 

[tyr_13]

There was a woman on the rescue squad I used to be on, who wore the same uniform as I did, no makeup (when on call), and shoulder length hair pulled back in a ponytail, virtually the same style as I wore when my hair was long. Neither I nor anyone else was confused about her sex or even gender. It has little to do with presentation, unless you are going over the top with disguises.

That example shows nothing. The existence of women who don't get misgendered doesn't in any way mean, well, much of anything. No one is arguing that anyone is equally likely to be misgendered.

Or you can be suspended/banned. Forum rules don't really analogies well to real world interactions.

Really? People can't stop talking to you in real life? That's news to me!

It can, of course. But it falls under rule 0, which basically doesn't exist IRL, whi h is why rule 0, 11, and 12 are the most frequent violations here. They are normal interactions in meatspace.

What are you talking about? People can, and do, stop associating with others over not being civil all the damn time. The thresholds might be different with different people in different situations, but you think it doesn't exist in real life?

Maybe I've fallen behind, but I thought they've both said they would comply with a sexually inconsistent pronoun when in the presence of that person?

They've argued that they shouldn't have to. Specifically d4m10n indicated this was in part motivated by needing to keep a job. They're saying that not just sex, but what they perceive someone's sex as, should be the primary factor always. Theprestige thinks that if he's wrong on sex, he'd change when told, but that's not reliable. See more of that below.

Attack helicopter is obviously meant to be hyperbolic and facetious. Put it this way: I don't think you can be trans gender. You are just whatever gender you feel like. You definitely can be trans sexual, which is not the sex you actually are.

Theprestige argued that the helicpoter example is meaningful and insightful.

As Paul2 notes, facial structure and body...proportion, let's say. 100% reliable? Of course not. Nothing much is. Better than 95%, or 1 in 20? Je le crois.

His cited article is paywalled, but from what some of the cited articles say it was something like 94% when all things like hair and makeup were covered (and something like 40% accurate for children's faces, which is hilarious).

But let's go with your 95% accurate. This would mean that about 8.8% (0.0871559633027523) of the people identified as transgender would actually be transgender. The rest would be cisgender incorrectly identified as transgender.

 

[Paul2]

. . . .
His cited article is paywalled, but from what some of the cited articles say it was something like 94% when all things like hair and makeup were covered (and something like 40% accurate for children's faces, which is hilarious).

But let's go with your 95% accurate. This would mean that about 8.8% (0.0871559633027523) of the people identified as transgender would actually be transgender. The rest would be cisgender incorrectly identified as transgender.

Do you have a link for that 94% figure?