There is already nothing rational about the current definitions to "women" and "men." They are two entirely socially constructed terms that have very little effective rational basis. They developed out from little more than culture and society interacting with each other over the course of time. The stereotypes attached to "men" and "women" have actually been fairly detrimental to the search for gender equality.

More importantly: there are already words that aren't synonymous that work, and they would be "gender" and "sex." Gender is the social construction and sex is the biological construction that typically refers to genitalia, chromosomes, gonads, so forth.

So really, I am not sure how it's possible to say "real woman" to mean a cis woman, and vice versa for men. To begin with, man and woman are terms that aren't particularly useful. Then you attach the term "real" to cis. This pretty much automatically implies that trans women and trans men are "fake". This kind of difference in language is problematic because it validates and fuels violence toward trans people by implying deception or that transgender people are of lower worth or status which directly contradicts your started feelings that trans people in general are equal.

In making this real/fake dichotomy you're setting all people up for reproducing the ideas and motivations that have lead to violence and discrimination towards transgender people in the West in the first place.

So if you want to make a distinction between trans people and cis people, it would be better to dichotomize trans/cis on basis of discrepancy or lack thereof between neurological structure and biological structure. This is sufficient. However, using fake/real is sufficient to fuel discrimination.

If you need some sort of objective measure for gender identity and the rationale for this term, get an MRI scan to analyze your brain structure and compare it to that of a trans man (ftm). See the video I linked above.

We can use "neurological sex, genital sex, chromosomal sex, reproductive sex" to describe measurable, objective, physical attributes, and "sex" to denote this class of terms, and "gender" to help people approach one another socially speaking. This is s highly pragmatic model that would accurately reflect both what people and more accurately capture what goes on historically as well as in other cultures, as with hijra in past India and percent India, or so forth. This is all without requiring terms like "fake" and "real" that would be guaranteed to reproduce stigma and discrimination.

These two usage s of sex and gender in these contexts with these definitions are already in use in academia but only need to be spread.

So far, hopefully, this addresses some of your points.

But to go with your trans "boy" (correctly : trans girl, if anything) example: No. That wouldn't work, I am 90% sure of it. Because you are still calling the child a "boy" even though she is asking you to call her a "girl." Children aren't stupid, they are very good at learning, and one of the first things a transgender child will learn is that society at present takes many steps to differentiate boys and girls and being labeled as one or the other will result in different treatment. Unless society was already completely gender neutral or has achieved gender equality, to the extent that any differences no longer exist or don't matter in any respect (effectively impossible given neurological sexual dimorphism and genderable behavior expressed is my guess), I am not even going to consider calling a self-identified girl "boy."

Doing what you propose will stress out a child, it will anger the child, it will sadden the child, it will hurt ,and objectively speaking you would be abusing the child, given what is known about the mechanisms of verbal abuse, how chronic stress impacts the body, and why "being in the closet forcibly" for anybody is generally unhealthy. You are betraying a child's trust when they tell you that there is something wrong inside their body and how they feel and you dismiss it by saying "your actually a boy/girl that's reality".

That should address some other points.

Hopefully this demonstrates that yes to some extent you're right, we should keep trans/cis dichotomy, and perhaps gender/sex dichotomy where gender means the social aspect and sex the physical (and that this differentiation has been used in academia even if the dictionary writers don't know jack about why they are not synonymous -- in fact it's outside of their expertise), but there are serious pragmatic rationale for everything I'm proposing, including why calling a child who asks to be called a girl or boy is a boy or girl against their wishes is a bad idea (and no, they are not stupid enough not to realize that they have a version set of genitalia that might be uncomfortable for them, if that is the case they are uncomfortable with them).

I wasn't saying " im still offended, say sorry again." I was trying to explain exactly why it's offensive and why jokes like that are or can be offensive and how they effect that response.

EDIT:

Is there any rationale for why it would take such a drastic change from a retro-virus to substantiate being treated as a different gender than the one assigned without consent from birth?

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Mar 20 2015, 12:03 am by Sand Wraith.

To digress, for a moment, I disagree. The concept of gender stretches across the entire kingdom of Anamalia, from spiders to fish to humans. Males provide insemination and females provide eggs for reproduction.

That's not to say that there aren't a number of pointless stereotypes attached to both male and females that were largely generated from the history of society, but even these stereotypes were derived initially from pragmatic considerations. In order to benefit from the division of labor, the larger stronger males of our species did certain tasks while the females did other tasks. Obviously today we don't have to worry about killing bears and shit so these archetypes are antiquated.

Your points earlier about the lack of generalization to the majority population are probably the primary contributors to this. The majority of us, having no experience with people whose social 'gender' is not aligned with their natural sex, have no reason to differentiate between 'gender' and 'sex' until confronted with the issue. With no basis for differentiable terms, the natural conclusion to is label the new interpretation as a 'fake' or 'different' version of what we know to be real. The connotations implied by 'fake' are certainly negative (though 'different' connotations are by default also bad), but the only way to fix the issue is to create a lexicon which people recognize and can therefore utilize instead of 'making do' with similar but insufficient terminology.

The point is not to create a real/fake dichotomy, its to provide an auxiliary lexicon to describe the additional dimension of gender we're talking about in a light which does not have negative connotation. This way we can satisfy the requirements of the existing terminology (i.e. "You are a man.") in addition to accurately describing the additional details (i.e. "Who is -insert gender description here-").

If we have two redundant sets of terminology ("sex" "gender") I have no problems with re-appropriating one for use in this manner; as you say its already widespread in academia. However the general purpose language (i.e. merriam-webster) needs to be updated to reflect this or it will continue to cause confusion.

I have no doubt that I identify sex as 'male' and orientation as 'straight' and gender as 'cis', if I'm utilizing the terminology correctly. In my particular case I am quite sure I cannot be female since I am incapable of giving birth, and since my sex is male and I'm attracted to women I must be straight, and since my sex is male and I think I'm male I must be cis.


I would consider allowing the theoretical child to create an ego which cannot identify with reality as a more heinous crime. Life is full of pain, stress, and anger. We cannot chose to be born rich, we cannot choose to be born to good parents, we cannot choose to be born with a particular sex. This is the pain of reality. If the child wants to be a woman and is born as a boy, it is a pain the child must identify and learn how to deal with - through hormones, dressing differently, surgery, or whatever means he can find to help. The child must learn that it cannot change the fact it was born as a boy - but it can change how it lives its life. It can choose to live like a woman, and it is this choice that should not be ridiculed. Our society today clearly cannot differentiate between the two - we force gender and sex to be assessed as a single element and a child feels pain for the choice which should only be felt for the reality. The child should be free to make the choice without pain. So I would tell the child he is a boy - that is the inescapable reality, the pain he has no choice but to deal with. And I would tell the child I would support whatever his choice may be, and let him make the choice without the pain of judgement. It would be a disservice to lie to the child and let him pretend he was born a girl.


Perhaps my terminology is not so clear: I don't think we should 'treat' anyone special without reason. If a man wants me to call him 'Susan' then I will call him Susan. If a man wants me to refer to him as 'her' I will not call him 'her' because that is the wrong word for a man. One is the man's choice, and one is the common terminology we must all use. I must respect the man's choice, and the man must respect society in return. If we come up with a new set of pronouns that refer to a person's 'gender identity' instead of their sex, and that person preferred to be referred to by the correct 'gender identity' pronoun, then I would refer to them by that pronoun, because I can satisfy both their preference and the correct terminology at the same time. The retro-virus is only necessary to change the person's sex. It would be much simpler to add some words to the dictionary and educate people about them than to design such a virus.

It's in my nature to make fun. I don't discriminate though, I offend everybody. I'll make fun of my gay cousin for his flambouyant gayness just as fast as I'll make fun of my straight friend for dating some dumbshit broad. If you were my friend in real life I would absolutely make fun of you for cross dressing and shit (or whatever your gender-bending situation is). So the fact that you were offended by me just further reinforces my idea that I'm doing it right When it goes too far I just say sorry and move on, cause I'm not looking to actually hurt anyone, I just want my lulz. In a forum like LD though my offensive nature isn't really welcomed or appropriate, so I make it a point to actually apologize. Glad you're not actually offended though.

okay so i just lost my post twice on a row, so I'll make this short.

No, that's fucking stupid. There is nothing real about deciding to use genitals that you won't see to decide pronoun instead of going with what a person asks you to use. You would also be opening up issues with risks of outing someone and the problems associated with that like getting fired, losing social connections, other discrimination.

somehow a person can do whatever they want to fulfill their life and it will always be valid but the moment they ask someone to use another word or to reconsider the choice if language, the line is drawn? do explain how this is at all consistent

i don't know how you manage to say something like that and don't experimence cognitive dissonance.

whatever. Personally I would like to recommend reading why using the correct pronoun wrt how somehow identified is important, but since you'll probably wipe your ass with it, who cares right? the trans person still was born some way and that means you can't treat them any differently, even if they ask nicely.

kill all cis people :D

EDIT: Here's the thing: a trans person asking someone to use a certain set of pronouns doesn't necessarily have to do with gender identity. To each person their own priorities. For some, that /is/ the reasoning. For others, it's an offering of trust or respect and the reciprocation of that is actually doing what is asked.

Under your reasoning, you are effectively holding a cloud over someone because "that's the reality" when that's actually a completely reprehensible thing to do because it's a constant reminder that holds a trans person down, in a similar way a person with a disability might constantly be reminded by their idiot friend who thinks he's doing the person a favor by "reminding" them they can't do x y z because they have a disability. That's why I'm calling what you're suggesting fucking stupid. Because no one is denying that someone was born with some set of genitalia. That's what you are asserting through your understanding as an outside what "he" and "she" mean or imply.

So it's fucking annoying, depressing, and strangling to do what you suggest, and hopefully, knowing this, you would understand why I would outright not stay or become friends with someone who, after having gone through all this with them, continues to use the wrong pronoun.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Mar 27 2015, 5:25 pm by Sand Wraith.

Yeah, it's like we breed or something.

Sorry for having a mind that matches my genitalia (and genes!). I'll try harder to be unfit for biological reproduction.

I certainly acknowledge that there are problems with society today in regards to the correct terminology, and also with respect to current biases against non-traditional gender. However, the use of pronoun is not a personal decision. For example, if I have never met you, but I wish to refer to you, I have no choice but to refer to you by the pronoun. "Hey, look at that ____ over there." "Hey, look at ____." If you look like a man, naturally I would say "guy" and "him." Woman naturally would be 'lady' and 'her.' Or, I could use the non-gender form: 'person' and 'that'. So arises the first issue: if you look like a woman, but I have never met you and don't know you wish to be called a man, how am I supposed to call you a man? The second issue is that English is not my language, and its not your language. There has to be a consistent convention to facilitate communication, which society agrees upon. If you wish to oppose the convention, it's simply wrong until the convention is changed. It is the unfortunate fact of living in society that everyone cannot always have their way about everything all the time. Personally I really don't care if we add some new pronouns to the language in order to make the differences between cis and trans clear or something, but until that happens, we have to acknowledge when we're abusing the language.

In the same train of thought, I have no problem if two people come up with an agreement to utilize terminology differently between them. If you were my friend and wanted me to call you something other than your born sex, fine. But the point is that agreement is only valid between the two of us. On legal documents, or when talking to other people (unless of course they had knowledge of our agreement) they would be confused if I referred to a 'him' as a 'her' or vice versa. Now regarding the deeper issue of a person's actual sex - an agreement between two people to use terminology differently still doesn't change reality. If a person is born male, and has an agreement with others to be called female for psychological/societal/personal/hormonal/whatever reasons, I still think its an important detail to understand that the point of the agreement is to lessen the burden of reality - not to actually redefine the reality. For example, "I will call you a 'her' because it makes you happy" and not "I will call you 'her' because of the definition of 'her'"


It's stupid to pretend that disabled people don't actually have a disability. Likewise I think its stupid to pretend that males are females. However, I don't think its stupid to help disabled people, and I don't think its stupid to help trans people. I simply think that 'pretending the issue doesn't exist' is not a good way to help.

Before you get back at me with the old 'but why is it an issue in the first place' line - let me explain. You naturally would be right in one respect - there's no issue with what the trans person wants (needs?). The issue at hand is twofold: society is currently not accepting of trans people, and trans people are trying to change society in some positive ways and some negative ways. The positive ways are helping society to become less discriminatory and more open. The negative ways are the attempts to change existing language and policy in ways which are not necessary in order to accommodate non-discrimination, and the unwillingness to acknowledge the existing language and policy. Clearly the negative aspects of this push for change do not warrant violence or discrimination in return, and in general I think it is society which must enact the most change. But drawing on historical examples - you must be very specific in your goals and reduce the collateral damage to society in order to succeed. Ghandi would not have overthrown Britian if he had used force - the collateral damage from his cause would have eclipsed the need for change. Likewise with other non-violent revolution: MLK, Women's suffrage, most recently gay protests, etc. Trans people deserve their rights as well - and I hope the day comes for you when you don't have to fear losing your job over your gender. To return to the issue, society must ultimately learn to accept you in order to be consistent with itself (an 'equal protection under law' kind of thing). Maybe that acceptance will come in the form of redefining 'sex' entirely - I don't know for sure, and god knows society has done some stupid things in the past. But to me the obvious solution is not to redefine our whole paradigm, but simply to make some space in our lexicon and invite you in.

-preservation and appeasement of the establishment
-separation of individual and society as distinct
-assuming trans people are "pretending otherwise" when I'm arguing strictly to talk about why one definition should be valued over another more useful one (without going into some really winded reasoning)
-conflating "don't bring up something unnecessary" with "ignoring reality"
-implying there's anything stupid about redefining "sex" entirely when really you mean "gender" pretty much
-Ghandi, while ignoring the racism which he used to prop himself up with, among all the other weird shit he did (and didn't do), while ignoring ccontextual factors like societal sentiments and increasing violence across the country
-"unwillingness to acknowledge the existing language and policy" (despite the fact that it is necessary to acknowledge them to be able to say they are discriminatory)

I can't be bothered to say much more atm. Pretty sure you're also ignoring MLK's later speeches and positions in favour of his earlier ones when he was still idealistic, but I'd have to check up on that again.

---


Here is an arbitrary convention that is better than the present convention (which is already adjusting towards the arbitrary convention which I'm about to present):
-don't gender someone unless you know as fact their gender
-use gender-neutral language until you know someone's gender as fact
-don't pry for someone's gender (since you never know why someone does not answer)

Some media outlets and journalism organizations have published trans-inclusive policies, so if you're still partial to the present establishment, there are conventions that are better that still hold older views.

---

Whatever, this is crawling more into my personal views. There aren't any "negative aspects," that's just what you're seeing as an individual. There's not any deletion of old terminology and concept or "reality" either, but it is restructuring through critique present conventions.

You're still wrong. EDIT: About what I'm proposing. That's what I mean, you're still loading in things I never said. So, I would say, "how am I denying anything by simply not bringing it up? To address what you said, how important is whatever I am ignoring compared to why I might ignore it, am I actually ignoring it in the first place?" Simply ignoring that a (trans) person has some set of characteristics that causes gender dysphoria would also mean that I take no consideration as to whether what I'm mentioning is relevant or not. Choosing to use a certain pronoun at the behest of someone does not constitute ignoring that they... have whatever genitals that I might presume they have, because that's not a consideration that enters the logic I am proposing.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Mar 28 2015, 3:24 am by Sand Wraith.

Since for some reason it hasn't been stated yet, Sweden is introducing a gender neutral pronoun in their next version of their official dictionary. A step in the right direction in many rights; and I do really hope the scientific community takes a lesson from it.

While in general I find Vrael's position to be both ignorant and abhorant, and I can't be bothered argueing with him and am glad that you are, I have to disagree with this.

A *lot* of people would be offended if you didn't address them with their outward gendered appearance. Particularly in service roles, where saying "how can I help you sir" and "yes ma'am" are expected by the public. If you used an agendered term in such a situation, you'd likely get complaints and in the US, fired.

English is a bit odd in that it doesn't have genders for inanimate things, like many other european languages do (French has female tables, etc), but it does have gendered pronouns.

I think your convention is worth aspiring to, but expecting it could be used as a matter of course in society as it currently stands is frankly naive.

That's a concrete point you make. Noted.

petty bourgeoisie, capitalist society. disgusting

Sand Wraith, I am at somewhat of a loss as to what you meant by your previous post. Is the first section perhaps a list of grievances with my most recent reply to you? I am also similarly confused by the lack of context in your last paragraph to me (the one starting with "You're still wrong.") Or maybe my previous reply was confusing?


If you'd take the time to elaborate I would appreciate it. Naturally, having a marked lack of personal experience on the subject betrays my ignorance, but I don't understand why anyone would see what I have said as abhorrent. I can't promise I'll agree with anything you have to say, but I do avow that I will disagree respectfully.

Lastly, why is it that when I argue this point:
I am met with disagreement, but when Lanthanide makes the same point:
Was my explanation confusing? Perhaps it was the specific example of service roles that made the difference? Was my presentation offensive?

Post has been edited 3 time(s), last time on Mar 30 2015, 12:17 am by Vrael.

It was a list of grievances, yes. They are problems embedded within your post, some of which I commented on.

The edit paragraph was in response to the theme that you seem to fall back often on "ignoring the issue through certain actions".

Re-reading your post, I would have to say, there are additional grievances such as suggesting that non-cis and non-het people have to minimize collateral damage among other things, which off the top of my head, means you are not understanding that the problems trans people face are deeply, deeply rooted and embedded in society, for which Lanth's situation in the service industry exemplifies (and also: in that example, that existing problematic convention is often damaging or annoying or a nuisance for trans people who, in the practice of that convention, may be misgendered).

Another grievance is that you're still seeing this as a "trans people are helping SOCIETY be less discriminatory!" That's straight-up fucking bullshit. Trans people are members of a society, not some other society, but hey, that goes back to what I said about "deeply rooted problems." Trans people are /forced/ to do this /for themselves/, this isn't for "society" which reads essentially as "cis people-only society~".

English is the language of any participant in English. You are suggesting a very prescriptional approach to language, which has repeatedly been a failure of a class of projects. The foremost purpose of a language is a tool to serve communcation between individuals. The formalization and prescriptivism is as much for convenience as non-formal English is, and only to certain extents. As the formalization delineates itself from this pragmatism, it becomes a jargon, and historically, the formaization has been a tool of oppression across various axes, such as race and class.

---

I never disagreed by suggesting society should not have a consistent convention for addressing people in general or take people in particular. I vehemently disagree that there should exist a convention that outs a trans person through everyday use. I generally agree there needs to be a convention to ease English's lack of singular genderless pronoun distinct from the plural form.

These points are all demonstrated through the arbitrary convention I provided.

With more progressive people, referring to one's significant other uses the language "my partner, my SO, my spouse(?), whatever", which is a convention that, when systemically implemented, does not out same-sex relationships while simultaneously permitting the possibility and agrees that the fact that anyone can be gay, bi, ace, or straight. This is a reform that harms homophobic intents more than it might harm QUILTBAG people. Existing gendered language might still be used in the presence of trusted agents.

What you suggest, thematically, is no systematic reform. This denies that the problem to begin with is on cis people's shoulders, not trans people. You are, thematically, suggesting trans people need to be accommodated as if we are a nuisance and an afterthought, and this our accommodation must take an add-on approach that let's straight people continue on their lives as they have always done (and as they have always thrown their weight around assuming and acting upon such assumptions that everyone is cis). This is the position that ends up with trans people being forces to shoulder an entire society's stubbornness/stupidity/ignorance/hatred by dealing with doctors that refuse medical services, attempts to marginalize GCS/SRS by categorizing it as " cosmetic " surgery and thereby barring teams people from accessing public healthcare or insurance routes, and attempting to fit trans people into "other washrooms" (washrooms for persons with disability -- yet another subset of people who society deems to be a nuisance to accomodate -- hence my prior shoutbox rant about mostly straight, cis, able-bodied people throwing just about everyone else under the bus for their own benefit) without understanding that this sort of segregation implies non-equivalent dignity. The position that accomodation should be "added on, for cis people's sake" is the one that ignores that /any/ accomodation is supposed to be for /trans/ people's sake.

This goes back to the disgusting positions that Sac and Az demonstrated and/or hold (some bullshit about "empathy for cis people" or other such nonsense, or some "well your logic is based on emotion too!" bullshit that pretty much skips everything about the arguments I've been providing), and how Az reads in "women" to meaning "cis women only" for a human rights organization (how fucking ironic).

Any sustainable, meaningful change demands that the accomodation made is not some sort of afterthought, which would defeat the entire intent of accomodation in the first place, THAT INTENT being the realization of a fair and just society. (This is also why "transphobia and homophobia", when the "-phobia" suffix is read literally as "fear", makes perfect sense in many contexts because "fear" comes from not wanting to have to deal with trans or homosexual people in a manner befitting a fair and just society.)

---

Having said all that, I address Lanth's post and my response. I responded as I did because I largely trust that Lanth understands where I'm coming from and because I needed more time to think on the situation. I might have been in ambiguous agreement or displayed agreeability because that sort of situation he proposed accepts that the convention would be problematic because it could get service-industry workers fired but only in the context of a structurally unsound society (one that requires gendered behaviour to feel safe in their own gender apparently). There also stands what he says at the end:


which finds a problem in the proposed convention in the context of present society but deems the convention as a worthwhile end point. But again, I never disagreed over if society needs (or wants) any sort of convention.

However, I find the idea that a social convention should be predicated on some sort of physical aspect very repulsive when the problem to begin with is a social one that arises from a convention that already predicates itself on a physical aspect. Any sort of "add-on" accomodation simply permits the existing inequalities and discrimination to continue.

---

EDIT: Your position is offensive because they are reflecting root ideals that have lead to the present set of problems (that have repeatedly resurfaced any time a society has failed to integrate all members of itself, e.g. iirc Mohawks were very discriminatory toward two-spirited individuals compared to some other First Nations cultures). Your presentation is insignificant (if at all significant) compared to that but you should take care to realize that saying things like "I think ignoring the fact that disabled people have disabilities is stupid" opens the extreme wherein disabled people should be dealt with in genocidal manner or are rightly discriminated against (such as "realizing" that they "only" take up some "insiginifcant" proportion of society and that somehow justifies... something. Even though this sort of argument is almost always irrelevant and a cop-out).

Post has been edited 3 time(s), last time on Mar 30 2015, 8:21 am by Sand Wraith.

When addressing my post, please don't focus on the "service roles" aspect. That was merely a very obviousand unambiguous example of how such a convention as suggested by SW would not work in our society as it currently stands (and indeed, US society is even less forgiving than mine, where dismissal for such an event would open the company up for massive personal grievance case). There is of course a whole gamut of reactions to such a proposed convention - some in current society would welcome it with open arms, others would be ambivalent "live and let live", many would find it uncomfortable or strange, some would take active offensive (such as the service roles example) and a tiny number would be actively violent about it - like if you called a gangster using a general-neutral pronoun and he thought you were implying he wasn't a man or whatever so he beat the crap out of you.

It's interesting how my opinion on that matter changed. I started thinking I want pronouns that refer to the sex of a person to remain intact and have pronouns added to properly reflect gender, which is what Vrael suggests. That'll basically mean "It's okay to be trans [when I say "trans" read it as any non-cis gender], we still respect you" which is what any tolerant human should do. But I've come to realize that it'll just help to further the stigma of "not normal" which is obviously what trans people want to avoid.

Now obviously trans people are a minority and they somehow have to live with that reality and they have no right to introduce changes to society that affects everyone, but that's exactly where I changed my opinion: As stated, I want separate pronouns based on sex. But I've come to realize that it's just because I'm used to having them, not because they offer any actual advantage. Having neutral pronouns wouldn't hurt anyone, so it shouldn't be a problem to introduce them.

Of course that's just the liberal me. Society will not adapt that anytime soon.

Perhaps the concept of collateral damage which I introduced was ill formed. The concept I wished to illustrate was that the acceptance/integration should be achieved without harming non-trans (aka cis) people in any way. In another form, just because trans rights are being bulldozed over doesn't give trans people the right to trample on other people's rights. Obviously it is up for debate for what constitutes 'harm' and what constitutes 'cis people being dickish and not wanting anything to change.' But whatever the solution is, it must (rather 'should') consider all the parties involved. By analogy, I consider a 'solution' like affirmative action. The problem was similar in that minorities are systematically denied opportunities that whites have. So, rather than instituting a program to increase minority opportunities and allow them the same path to higher education based on merit that the majority has, the program simply bypassed everything and imposed a pro-discrimination restraint on the admissions process. Was it effective? Certainly. Is it discrimination on the basis of race? Certainly - but this one is in favor of the minority. I'm not saying that upholding the rights of trans people will necessarily hurt the rights of cis people - but we do need to take care in whatever solution we propose.

Trans people are a part of society - whether cis people like it or not. Trans people will be helping themselves, and they will be helping the society they live in become less discriminatory and as such more consistent with its stated rules (i.e. 'equal protection under law').

Note that when I speak of 'reality' it applies to cis people as well, and this is a reality they would like to ignore. They must acknowledge that trans people will be a part of society because it will happen regardless of anything they might want. They might want all trans people to disappear, but the reality is that trans people have and will be around, and they should acknowledge this reality rather than prop up some fairytale bullshit.

Yes, I think we need to update English to reflect gender without discrimination and implied negativity. Unfortunately, what I want will not make it happen, we need the issue to become widespread enough that society adopts the change and whoever runs Merriam-Webster, Oxford, etc, goes and makes the edits.

So lets pretend that 'gob' represents a person who was born male and wishes to be female. You think that we shouldn't be saying "Hey look at that gob over there."?

I think you mistake my meaning. Perhaps I should not have used the term 'accomodated' and instead used a phrase like "implement change." The point isn't even that we're talking about a trans minority - the point is that there is a minority whose rights are being infringed upon, and we must take steps as a society to rectify the situation. The steps which rectify the situation similarly must not infringe upon anyone else's rights (or must infringe upon everyone's rights equally, like taxes). It is only an 'add-on' approach in the sense that this is the first time in the history of our society when meaningful change for the better for this particular minority is a probable outcome within the near future. The change is not "for cis peoples' sake" and in fact neither is it "for trans peoples' sake." Rather, it is for the society as a whole to improve itself.

Why? Is "That is a big man." offensive? 'Big' is a physical characteristic. "That's a black woman." Is 'black' offensive? It's just a physical characteristic (though clearly 'black' has racial connotations as well, but already in parts of the world we can say this sort of thing without the racial implication.) Anything can be used offensively. In fact, for some reason, any descriptor besides 'white cis straight christian male' seems to be taken offensively by some group or other. Females, racial minorities, gender minorities in this case, veterans, old people, aka every 'protected class' under the anti-discrimination laws. We cannot stop people from being offensive - and in fact I believe it is necessary to tolerate offensiveness in order to have a free society. All we can do is provide equal protection under law. Clearly trans people are not getting their fair share of protection, so ultimately what will probably happen is some definition of trans being added as a protected class (if it isn't already) and then a bunch of lawsuits about discrimination based on being trans, and then attitudes will start to shift. Hopefully that happens quickly so we can move on as a society. But I think just because there will always be people who abuse words in order to offend people, doesn't mean we should not use those words.

If you'll take care to note, I did not suggest any of those things, either for disabled people or trans people. That is clearly one extreme solution, Sparta killed their disfigured children, Germany roasted the Jews, we've all heard these horror stories. I think acknowledging that a problem exists can be done in a fair and balanced way, without resorting to extremes. For example: let us consider the disabled stall in a men's room (ignoring gender for the moment). If I were to treat a disabled person as fully integrated and completely normal just as I would treat anyone else, then I would say that bastard can damn well wait in line with the rest of us and I'll go ahead and use the disabled stall while he waits for me to take a dump. I think this is pretty mean though - and typically people make sure not to use the disabled stall if there's a disabled person around who needs it, even though this means treating the disabled person differently.

I actually disagree with this. If a minority did not have the right to introduce changes which affect everyone, no minority would ever get their rights respected unless the majority magically 'bestowed' them. I think everyone has the right to introduce changes which affect everyone, as long as everyone can agree upon them.

Not sure if I made myself clear. What I meant was that it shouldn't be expected by a minority that society spends an unproportionate amount of resources to cater to them or introduces rules that make everyone's lives harder just to make the minority's easier.
It should be expected however, that they receive recognition and appropriate concessions.

happy transgender day of visibility 2015

i will respond later.

i should say right now that i was reading your comment on not ignoring factors in the negative light because you are applying a double standard for when you decide to recognize a difference for the positive. offering this benefit of doing to people with disabilities but not trans people despite a commonality of structural oppression (and potential for intersection) is problematic.

I was thinking about this some more, and while you haven't completed your latest response yet, I thought you might appreciate the thoughts that I had anyway.

Mostly I was wondering why anyone would find my position on this abhorrent, Lanthanide specifically, though Sand Wriath you seem to disagree pretty strongly with what I've had to say as well. The thought occurred to me that the context with which we're approaching the topic is completely different, and correct me if I'm wrong, but the context you're approaching this from is "Trans people are killing themselves because of what society does to them." In contrast, my context is "Some dude wants to call himself a chick even though he's a dude." So, if I have to call a dude a chick in order for that ....(pardon my pronoun use) him/her to not kill his/herself, than I have no problem with that. I just wanted to be clear about that - I agree not having trans people kill themselves and horrible stuff like that trumps me calling you a guy or a girl or whatever. There is a practicality here that needs to be acknowledged - not because its 'academically consistent' or 'dictionary correct' or something - but because if the only way to not get someone to kill themselves is to call them what they want to be called, then we should do that.

However, in the theoretical future when the burden of oppression has been lifted from trans folks - then I think what I've said still applies. We should 'fix' our lexicon so that sex reflects sex, gender reflects gender, et cetera. A dude who wants to be a chick would still be called 'male' because thats reality, but in this theoretical future there won't be a problem because we will have removed the negative stigma from being trans, and we will be free to call him a 'man' or whatever the correct 'gender' pronoun will be, and all the other good stuff we've already spoken about.

Clearly you've never heard of the Americans with Disabilities Act

This sort of language already exists. I've already described a standard that is in use in some communities. There also already exist journalistic standards that are better than outdated practices that you seem to continue to partake in (binding "male" to "he").

And this is STILL fucking annoying to talk about because you still think it's a "dude" who wants to be a "chick." This is incorrect down to the foundation of the thinking.


This is still incorrect. If you really need such an analogy, you should consider the hypothetical situation of a "chick" who has a "dude" body (trans woman) or a "dude" who has a "chick" body (trans men). You calling a trans women a "dude who wants to be a chick" is discriminatory, ignorant, and incorrect, and if a trans woman is using this sort of terminology I would first guess they are dumbing down the conversation to try to appeal to you.

And even what I suggest in that analogy is incorrect because there are plenty of trans women and trans men who are comfortable with the genitalia they were born with.


When people ask you not to call them something, you don't do that. If you call your professor your "bro" and they ask you to call them "professor" instead, what the fuck are you going to do? Continue calling them "bro"?

Dictionaries and "academically consistent" follow from practicality as much as practicalities follow from dictionaries and academic consistence.

---

EDIT: I'm not "constructing" a response, I'm mostly trying to get over the frustration of you NOT GETTING IT.

---

EDIT: You imply that providing healthcare to trans people (e.g. HRT, SRS) is an inordinate amount of resources to allocate? This is so, SO far from the truth. Even in common sense, you should be able to see that it is not possible for a tiny minority of a population to take up immense resources... Unless you're talking about Western society (primarily industry and corporations) and energy consumption of course.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Apr 10 2015, 6:05 am by Sand Wraith.

Perhaps you could educate me on the correct terminology then. The point of "dude who wants to be a chick" was not to aggravate or frustrate you.

If a person is born male, and wishes to be female, are they then a trans man or a trans woman?

If a person is born male, and wishes to be female, but does not dress differently, does not act differently, has had no surgery, etc, are they a trans man or a trans woman, and/or are they simply non-trans?

This is far from the first time I have had to explain this. I am not so much offended as exasperated. I urge you to do some reading on your own.

This is incredibly frustrating particularly because it would appear that the entire first page of discussion was ignored.

So I'm going to keep this simple:

A person who is described as "born male but wishes to be/know they are female" might also be described as a "trans women" or "male-to-female transgender person".

A person who is described as "born female but wishes to be/know they are male" might also be described as a "trans man" or "female-to-male transgender person".


They are a trans woman.

EDIT: This is kind of/completely ridiculous as an explanation though. Please refer to http://itspronouncedmetrosexual.com/2015/03/the-genderbread-person-v3/ .



I find it to be pretty decent.

EDIT2: My replies are coming in slow because I'm tired. Thanks for your consideration on the subject though.

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Apr 24 2015, 1:43 pm by Sand Wraith.