Thermal
August Member
That's what we are all saying. The right ones correlate to your sex. The wrong ones don't. Much like you, I, or the rest of us here are not a she, correctly because we are all males.
Moderated Using wrong pronouns= violence??
- Thread starter d4m10n
- Start date
That's what we are all saying. The right ones correlate to your sex. The wrong ones don't. Much like you, I, or the rest of us here are not a she, correctly because we are all males.
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
Which is why we don't use pronouns for them.
You seem to be suggesting there is one rule for what makes pronouns (in)correct for all mammals other than human beings, and another rule which makes pronouns correct for human beings. Is that correct?
Last edited:
arthwollipot
Limerick Purist
No, that's wrong. Also, it relies on the sex/gender dichotomy, which, as I have said before, is disputed.
Gotcha! Pkow! Well done.Which is why we don't use pronouns for them.
You seem to be suggesting there is one rule for what makes pronouns (in)correct for all mammals other than human beings, and another rule which makes pronouns correct for human beings. Is that correct?
Yes, we treat humans differently to the way we treat non-human animals.
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
What would you say is the correct way to assign pronouns to all the other mammals?
ETA: Adding a hypothetical to make this interesting. Suppose a cisgender male freshman shows up to the University of Colorado at Boulder from way out in sparsely populated SE corner of the state. He is laboring under the terrible misapprehension that whatever pronoun assignment rule we use for dogs, horses, and pigs is the same one we should use for human beings, who are also mammals after all. He thinks that pronouns are about sex, rather than self-perception or identity. Short of threatening to kick him out or pull his scholarship, how should we persuade him to adopt the newer, better rule which applies only to human beings?
Last edited:
arthwollipot
Limerick Purist
We assign pronouns to nonhuman animals based on observation of their genitalia, of course. But as I have said, that is entirely irrelevant, and a red herring, so having answered your gotcha question I will ignore future followups. ETA: ignoring your hypothetical too for the same reason.
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
Why, yes, I do conform to quite a few male gender norms, just like I’ve been telling you. You still have no actual evidence of my sex and that’s the point.
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
Why you should adopt the new pronoun heuristic
For anyone reading along:
The advocates of "correct pronouns" have avoided answering this but I'm reposting just in case anyone wants to have a go at it. My prediction is that no one will try to persuade this poor freshman, because moral grandstanding takes so much less effort than moral suasion.
ETA: "Everybody has a right to their pronouns," is not an argument, but rather the conclusion which comes at the end of an argument.
For anyone reading along:
Suppose a cisgender male freshman shows up to the University of Colorado at Boulder from way out in sparsely populated SE corner of the state. He is laboring under the terrible misapprehension that whatever pronoun assignment rule we use for dogs, horses, and pigs is the same one we should use for human beings, who are also mammals after all. He thinks that pronouns are about sex, rather than self-perception or identity. Short of threatening to kick him out or pull his scholarship, how should we persuade him to adopt the newer, better rule which applies only to human beings?
The advocates of "correct pronouns" have avoided answering this but I'm reposting just in case anyone wants to have a go at it. My prediction is that no one will try to persuade this poor freshman, because moral grandstanding takes so much less effort than moral suasion.
ETA: "Everybody has a right to their pronouns," is not an argument, but rather the conclusion which comes at the end of an argument.
Last edited:
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
If 99/100 people with grey in their beards were born with testicles, what would Bayes Theorem tell us about whether such beards count as evidence which allows us to infer something about birth sex?
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
You might draw that conclusion based on the information, but the information you have is how well you believe the person conforms to a particular gender norm.
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
Look up the Michael Obama conspiracy and then tell me how remarkably accurate people are.
Manger Douse
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2010
- Messages
- 2,024
You don't think that conspiracy is politically motivated in anyway? That the MAGA types that promote this conspiracy genuinely believe Michelle to be a man? Lol
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
It predates MAGA, I believe. I also have a hard time believing people could possibly believe in Flat Earth or psychic powers, but, here we are.
Manger Douse
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2010
- Messages
- 2,024
MAGA types - eg: right wing types. You think right wing types spreading this conspiracy somehow contradicts that published study?
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
I think it reflects the limited nature of the study, or else that people are extrapolating the results beyond what it actually says.
They removed all gender signifiers and measured how well people could identify the sex of a person. That, in no way, implies that they will continue to be as accurate once other variables are added back in. We’ve heard tons of stories of non-gender conforming cis-women being denied access to women’s bathrooms, for example. Hell, trans people who “pass” wouldn’t even be a thing if people were so remarkably accurate outside of highly controlled laboratory conditions. People are easily influenced by their biases and always have been.
As I’ve said before, transdar is no more real or accurate than gaydar.
Manger Douse
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2010
- Messages
- 2,024
You've heard "tons" of anecdotes and a right wing conspiracy and that calls into question a published study correct?
Last edited:
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
I'm not saying the study is incorrect. I'm saying it's being applied to a situation it wasn't testing.
eta: For example, Women are getting harassed in bathrooms because of anti-transgender hysteria
Last edited:
Manger Douse
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2010
- Messages
- 2,024
Did you not say: "You are assigning pronouns based on a person’s conformity to current social gender norms" - I thought this study removed current social gender norms yet it was still possible to tell a persons sex
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
Do you often meet entire people, not just their faces, in highly controlled laboratory conditions?
eta: Did the study measure the effect of adding gender attributes to the faces on the accuracy of the sex identification, perhaps including non-conforming gender attributes?
Last edited:
Manger Douse
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2010
- Messages
- 2,024
No I generally see them moving and talking which offer clues to their sex more than clothing and hair does in 2023. There's a female drag act on the circuit and I clocked her sex in an instant
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2008
- Messages
- 18,095
I used Google's text preview to see what the subsequent papers that cited yours cited them for, and that was the best I could do. There isn't a guarantee that this was what the paywalled paper said, but if you want to dispense with your own citation I won't blame you.