Are you Politically Correct?

[Lexicus]

- This is not what gender factually means.

Wrong, it is what it factually means. The existence of trans and non-binary people demonstrates this conclusively by providing cases which cannot be accounted for by the "gender is what you biologically are" paradigm.

- This is not how it's perceived by the majority, which is problematic when the purpose of a language is to convey a meaning that is understood by the recipient.

Citation needed, but don't bother because I just don't care.

- This is a definition that is inconsistent (it simply doesn't work with the rest of the language and concepts that are related to it).

1) not true and 2) even if true, more reactionary cultural baggage to be discarded onto the ash heap of history

- This is a definition that has been handmade to fit a very specific social context, and the problem is that this social context relies on gender perception NOT being based on this definition of gender, but of biological gender.

No, this definition is the result of the failure of the biologically-anchored definition to fully describe reality.

I would not say "delusion" but rather "mismatch", though I'm not sure you're going to get honest and notice the difference, though I'd enjoy to be proved wrong.

It's not that I don't acknowledge the difference, it's that you don't want to own the logical implications of what you said, which is understandable given how vile and hateful those implications are.

Stop purposely misinterpreting what is written, I'm pretty sure it's easily understandable if you're not actively trying not to.

What you wrote patently implies that their pain and realty are two separate things. If that is not what you meant please explain what you did mean.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

No, that is accurate according to what I know. Notice that this definition differs significantly from Akka's.

It differs from both Akka's and what I recall being common in, say, 1990. I'm not sure exactly when it changed, just that it became more useful for me to separate them cognitively than to keep them meaning the same thing (noting that others had apparently separated them also).

- This is not what gender factually means.

It seems the definition has been functionally changed since some time ago. A word means what society agrees it to mean, and in this case the usage that sex =/= gender is the more common. I'm even seeing that when looking it up. Even if that's a forcefully changed narrative and perhaps a different word could have been chosen to lessen confusion, it at least appears like we're stuck with it.

- This is a definition that is inconsistent (it simply doesn't work with the rest of the language and concepts that are related to it).

I don't think it has to be inconsistent. Take this proposition:

X = biological sex male
Y = biological sex female
A = Common viewpoint of Male
B = Common viewpoint of Female
C-W = whatever else, can be whatever you want

Under this model XA and YB are most common, while XB and YA are also established/common. Then XC, YC, etc are valid, though only useful beyond X and Y insofar as they inform self and others' anticipation of how one internalizes. So X and Y are physical descriptors and the rest are descriptors not unlike what one might communicate in calling themselves a "gamer" or an "athlete" in terms of concept/constrained anticipation.

It's more complicated than "male" or "female", but it also can better constrain anticipation of behavior/preferences if used with some model of consistency. The trick is to have people mean the same thing when they claim they're a particular gender. R = not R situations are annoying.

When you call something a false claim, that's simply a claim you are making.

I called it false because it's false. I'm not "baiting" anything and there are at least some things I could see that would change my mind. Additionally, since I've asserted I perceive standards that can differentiate waifu wars from other forms of offense, this suggests that there are at least some answers you could make that I would necessarily be hypocritical to call "wrong" because doing so would make ME self-inconsistent.

 

[Farm Boy]

For english speakers, in terms of describing a person as male or female, sex and gender were
interchangeable, albeit the term gender was more polite, the term sex being regarded as more vulgar.

That was not necessarily the same for other language speakers,
particularly for those languages that assign genders to all sorts of nouns.

Previously, I would say that gender was used to refer to people, sex was used to refer to livestock. It would be demeaning to be sexed like a bi**h, or a cockerel. Not to be confused with with the verb fornicated.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Previously, I would say that gender was used to refer to people, sex was used to refer to livestock. It would be demeaning to be sexed like a puppy, or a cockerel. Not to be confused with with the verb fornicated.

In the end we're all animals, one way or another .

 

[Cloud_Strife]

I have never questioned your right to exist. If I did, please educate me where I did.

Did I say you did?

 

[rah]

Then there is no reason for any discussion between us to be uncivil.
Which is what I would prefer. Thank you

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Would you (in general use not you specifically) refer to me as the gender I was born as or the gender I am transitioning too, because the former is transphobic regardless if I have or have not had srs.

I find it interesting that that the likes of Akkad and TheMeInTeam want to lay the groundwork of being able to deadname and misgender transpeople yet take issue when they are called out for doing exactly that.

They own the consequences of the speech that they enable, defend and lay the groundwork for. The consequences in this case is a very high suicide rate as well as transpeople being harmed.

 

[Akka]

Wrong, it is what it factually means. The existence of trans and non-binary people demonstrates this conclusively by providing cases which cannot be accounted for by the "gender is what you biologically are" paradigm.

See my second post right above yours that refines a bit the definition.

1) not true and 2) even if true, more reactionary cultural baggage to be discarded onto the ash heap of history

That's just dismissing something you don't like without actually addressing it.
Regardless, it's deeply linked with the follow-up :

No, this definition is the result of the failure of the biologically-anchored definition to fully describe reality.

(also @TheMeInTeam about the XYAB and so on ^^)
The biologically-anchored definition is the one from which the others exists. You can only be "transgender" if "gender" is linked to a sex that you feel you're part of but that isn't yours. You can only want to be recognized as "man" (or "woman") if there IS a different perception between "man" and "woman", and these different perceptions stems from... you got it, biological differences.
If anybody could arbitrarily defines oneself as "man" or "woman" regardless of anything else (so if "gender" was really what you claim it is), then it would simply lose all meaning, as both terms would simply not reference anything distinct at all.

A concept exists because it recovers an idea that has borders. If your idea lacks borders and is "whatever goes", then there is no concept to describe at all.

It's not that I don't acknowledge the difference, it's that you don't want to own the logical implications of what you said, which is understandable given how vile and hateful those implications are.

I completely own the logical implications of what I said, but only of what I said.
You're the one who is trying to mix what I say up with a lot of different concepts that are heinous so you can claim I'm heinous by association. Less hypocrisy, more intellectual honesty, thanks.

What you wrote patently implies that their pain and realty are two separate things. If that is not what you meant please explain what you did mean.

I find it irritating that I have to explain it, because it's self-obvious and I have a hard time believing you really couldn't notice it. But I'll play along for the sake of making the point clear :

Being a man or a woman is not subject to self-identity, it's a biological constatation.
Feeling like you are a man or a woman is a different, though very strongly correlated, aspect.
Being in pain because how you feel is mismatched with what you are is certainly a reality.
Said pain still doesn't change what you biologically are (that's the same concept, though obviously orders of magnitude worse and more complex, as the simplistic example of height).
So yeah, the pain of someone can be real, and I never denied that, but it still doesn't change other aspects of reality (the sex of the person). As you can see, both are part of reality, so your affirmation about what is implied by what I said is simply wrong, as again you are just mixing up different concepts.

 

[rah]

Would you (in general use not you specifically) refer to me as the gender I was born as or the gender I am transitioning too, because the former is transphobic regardless if I have or have not had srs.

Whatever you prefer. I really don't care since it's kind of personal thing that people get to decide themselves. To me the only place it might make a difference is international competitions and I don't have a good answer for that so I really would not offer an opinion on it.

 

[EnglishEdward]

Unless of course one is a hermaphrodite

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermaphrodite

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Whatever you prefer. I really don't care since it's kind of personal thing that people get to decide themselves. To me the only place it might make a difference is international competitions and I don't have a good answer for that so I really would not offer an opinion on it.

OK but there are people in this very thread advocating for me being misgendered because they think gender is Inherently biological.

 

[rah]

I don't see why it's any of their business.

 

[red_elk]

I would refer to transpeople as transmen/transwomen. Use separate gender category for them.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

I don't see why it's any of their business.

Neither do i, yet they are strident in their defense of laying the groundwork for bigots to deadname and misgender me.

They might not dislike transpeople, but they give the bigots both a gun and the ammunition.

 

[jarred!]

Would you (in general use not you specifically) refer to me as the gender I was born as or the gender I am transitioning too, because the former is transphobic regardless if I have or have not had srs.

Trick question, I'd use your name.

 

[Farm Boy]

Being a man or a woman is not subject to self-identity, it's a biological constatation.

Does the nuance clear if one clarifies that "male" and "female" rise in vocabulary as the biological corresponding terms to the socially constructed genders of "man" and "woman?" Like restrooms, if people want them to correspond to genitals should either say "male" and "female" or instead of etching pants and skirts, should instead etch dick and tits. Or the little arrow penis thingy and the little cross uterus thingy attached to the circles.

I mean, even old fuddy duddies that use my terms from "previously" don't necessarily care to disagree at all, their lingo is just not bleeding edge. I still find it disrespectful internally to refer to people as we refer to chattel, but w/e. Language changes and some people really want specific words and they aren't good at parsing intent. Especially in the communication garbageland of the internet.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I find it interesting that that the likes of Akkad and TheMeInTeam want to lay the groundwork of being able to deadname and misgender transpeople yet take issue when they are called out for doing exactly that.

Quoted post is openly lying and defies evidence in the thread:

I had to look up "deadnaming". If someone legally changes their name isn't this just a refusal by the "deadnamer" to accept reality? Even for arbitrary reasons like Chad Johnson --> Chad Ochocinco, that really was his last name, equally factual to any other name. In this case the dead-namer is not only being disrespectful, they're also doing something that should be disrespected (ignoring reality).

Lying/defying evidence does more to marginalize your arguments than anything I could possibly post even if I wanted to do so, which I don't. If we are asked to denounce haters and yet we observe both rational and irrational hate from those who ask this, how does this convince us? If we accept that hatred is bad, why should we make an exception?

The biologically-anchored definition is the one from which the others exists. You can only be "transgender" if "gender" is linked to a sex that you feel you're part of but that isn't yours. You can only want to be recognized as "man" (or "woman") if there IS a different perception between "man" and "woman", and these different perceptions stems from... you got it, biological differences.
If anybody could arbitrarily defines oneself as "man" or "woman" regardless of anything else (so if "gender" was really what you claim it is), then it would simply lose all meaning, as both terms would simply not reference anything distinct at all.

Sure, but gender perception being derived from biological sources doesn't *necessarily* make further differentiation less useful. Strictly speaking, everything about our preferences is "biological" in some sense (genes + experience interacting with them etc). It still seems useful, if you have "people who are X but not A" to have a conceptual word to represent that, since this is clearly different in behavior/preference to "people who are X and A".

A concept exists because it recovers an idea that has borders. If your idea lacks borders and is "whatever goes", then there is no concept to describe at all.

I did say that these things need to mean/reference the same anticipation consistently, to avoid R = not R with 8 people claiming to mean R operating on 5 different definitions. THAT's not useful. Conceptually, having a category C where you can anticipate roughly the same thing from 100,000 people who claim C suggests that C can be use a useful extra bit of information beyond X and Y. I don't see anything wrong with this in principle.

 

[Akka]

Does the nuance clear if one clarifies that "male" and "female" rise in vocabulary as the biological corresponding terms to the socially constructed genders of "man" and "woman?" Like restrooms, if people want them to correspond to genitals should either say "male" and "female" or instead of etching pants and skirts, should instead etch dick and tits. Or the little arrow penis thingy and the little cross uterus thingy attached to the circles.

I mean, even old fuddy duddies that use my terms from "previously" don't necessarily care to disagree at all, their lingo is just not bleeding edge. I still find it disrespectful internally to refer to people as we refer to chattel, but w/e. Language changes and some people really want specific words and they aren't good at parsing intent. Especially in the communication garbageland of the internet.

Well, "man" and "woman" are actually not "gendered" but "sexed" terms. They literally means "male human" and "female human". So if they become the "gendered" version and people start to use "male" and "female" as a substitute, I'm pretty sure it would just displace the debate of gender on "male" and "female" then.

Sure, but gender perception being derived from biological sources doesn't *necessarily* make further differentiation less useful. Strictly speaking, everything about our preferences is "biological" in some sense (genes + experience interacting with them etc). It still seems useful, if you have "people who are X but not A" to have a conceptual word to represent that, since this is clearly different in behavior/preference to "people who are X and A".

I did say that these things need to mean reference the same anticipation consistently, to avoid R = not R with 8 people claiming to mean R operating on 5 different definitions. THAT's not useful. Conceptually, having a category C where you can anticipate roughly the same thing from 100,000 people who claim C suggests that C can be use a useful extra bit of information beyond X and Y. I don't see anything wrong with this in principle.

Sure, I obviously don't mind a word that represent a defined concept. The problem is that this redefinition of gender latches on many points that are directly stemming from sex (like sexuality, recognizing visually the gender of someone, a large part of the gender roles, trying to redefine "man" and "woman" and so on).
That's the part where I said that redefining gender to means "whatever one said they are" can't work, as it requires an existing base that actually doesn't follow this definition but the original one.
Notice that "gender" as in "social perception and definition of sex" does work much better in this case.

 

[Gorbles]

@TheMeInTeam, lmao, how about you quote your other comments where you argue that you need proof (the definition of which is your own personal qualifier, and not rooted in the information provided already) that the harm caused needs to be more important than some other theoretical harm (that is basically never discussed).

People can take offense to whatever they want. Even if it isn't coherent (look up any youtube comment section involving "waifu wars" for an example of this in practice). However, for *other people* to take someone's offense seriously there needs to be some method to filter between "offenses we should care about" and "X is best girl". I'm pretty sure we're capable of making this distinction. If not, there are some problems.

Which came from a post by you where you say "if not for the hyper-fixation on linguistics there wouldn't be any coherent reason to feel offended by being "mis-gendered" in the first place". Note the quotes around "mis-gendered". Link.

My issue with a fixation on linguistics is that it relates to my view of how constructive the topic is. It's not a party trick to be rolled out to justify being offended about misgendering or deadnaming someone. Now, there were two ways to roll with this. One, to assume that you had no idea what you were talking about (something I only concluded with Akka after a lot of posts) and that you unknowingly used a generic phrase in two separate contexts by accident. The second was to assume you knew exactly what it meant and were using it as linguistic justification to either invalidate support for being offended over misgendering and deadnaming, or invalidate my previous invocation about why I wasn't considering the previous line of debate anymore. I mean, as you spelled it out for me in your post, it wasn't really an assumption at all. You literally said "if one is allowed, the the complaint about the other is rescinded". You were trying to put me in an either / or situation on purpose, and that informed the entire discussion for me going forwards. Admittedly that's my bias, but you really didn't help yourself throughout. Which lead to me offering a PM to help clear things up, in good faith (we managed to get through UI and UX threads together, at the very least).

To that end, since you didn't bother with the PM, I'm maintaining my position of calling out support for deadnaming and misgendering wherever I see it, and that includes an ad hominem ("you are lying, ergo you are wrong" - your literal argument against Cloud there) as well as hypocrisy (as you're defying your own words in this thread).

Oh and there's this gem:

Calling misgendering/deadnaming "violence" is objectively incorrect, however. I've seen people try to claim the former and the latter came up as one of the first 5 search results. Inane.

From the same post, no less.

I fear you've gotten yourself into the problem where you're arguing against posters more than what their arguments represent, which is how you managed to hold a conversation on respecting pronouns (to some extent) with Lexicus, but in parallel argued with me that you shouldn't have to care because there's no objective measure for the harm caused vs. harm caused by arbitrary acts to other random people, which escalated and eventually resulted in you claiming that other people are being bigoted towards yourself.

You're very quick to call others out for apparently lying, and I honestly don't know if it's just a blind spot with your own prose or if you just perceive your personal truth to be of a greater certainty than anyone elses', on literally any topic.

 

[Gorbles]

Aside: I really hoped I'd last longer than two weeks in OT without resorting to this citation-style of argument because it bores me to tears, but I will not stand for any kind of whataboutism when it comes to peoples' livelihoods. Whatever works, I guess.

My feelings on this approach stem from other communities where people didn't get as invested in discussions, and getting "too serious" was seen as basically "losing". That's not the case here, and simply my chip to work through.