> Please avoid introducing classic flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say about them.
I cannot help but notice, though, that apparently all subthreads critical of Manning and/or commenting on the gender thing have been not only heavily downvoted but marked as 'flagged', while some fairly vitriolic ones in Manning's favor have not.
Not trying to be polemical, and not out to kindle further unproductive discussion, but I would be interested to see the unofficial political guidelines of HN moderation spelled out a bit more explicitly.
But you are right about the 'tedious back-and-forth' (which I called 'unproductive discussion'): Further down, you very appropriately link to dang's ruminations on cognitive bias. Just please remember that none of us are guaranteed to escape the dangers of CB. I certainly know that I don't, despite a decent level of awareness on the issue.
My comment has sparked a lot of responses, many of them apparently assuming that I am somehow attacking Manning. I am not. I most clearly am not. I didn't say a word about Manning or the case. I stated (in perhaps unnecessarily pointed words, I'll grant you that) my sincere opinion on the objective validity of subjective gender change. If that point and its attendant controversiality is not worthy of intellectual curiosity, I see dark times ahead indeed (and for the record: I do).
https://hn.algolia.com/?query=by:dang%20cognitive%20bias&sor...
If you see comments that you think violate the guidelines, please flag them or email us about it at [email protected].
> This person is male. Could we please avoid the biologically nonsensical charade of referring to him as"she"?
What is your definition of male? "Has the XY chromosome pair?" "Was born with testicles?" "Was born male-looking?" All these have complicated causes and effects, and you will get contradictory answers for some individuals.
Are you aware that fetus development is driven by hormones as much as by genes? "This person is male" is a generally useful simplification. Prevalence of people with out-of-ordinary combinations of genetic and hormonal developmental factors strong enough to get into the intersex category is so low that it's normally perfectly sufficient point of view. That does not mean we should dismiss people with these minority genetic/hormonal makeups.
Refusal to respect another person's body/personality mismatch and insistence on calling them something they do not identify with is hostile and petty.
If they want to be referred to as a she, I don't see that it costs us anything to comply with their desire though... so I do.
These other replies miss the mark. It's not that, "calling a commoner a king is inaccurate, whereas a biological male could accurately be called female". Because that just brings you full circle back to arguing over whether biological gender and gender "identity" can be separated.
The more practical answer is that it doesn't hurt anything, and being a dick about it just makes you a dick. If you told me to address you as Lord Commander of the Night's Watch, then I might privately harbor some doubts about your mental health. But I'd likely do it just to make you go away, m'lord.
I would not, however, feel bound by any commands to defend The Wall or anything.
As a consequence of respect for their personal identity as a member of society (and NOT fixating on their sex organs, which is frankly creepy), most people will refer to a trans* person as the gender they identify as, not the sex they were born with.
Or, if uncertain (because of genderfluidity and new pronouns like Xe/Xir/whatever), just using "singular they" and moving on with your life.
It's a polite society thing.
For me, I tend to assign gender by sex. I don't want to disrespect myself by saying something I don't believe. On the other hand I don't want to disrespect others either. So for now my approach is to sidestep the issue and refer to all trans people with "they".
We are not talking about cross-dressers. We are talking about transgender individuals. You wouldn't even be able to notice them standing in front of you once their transition is complete.
I don't understand that part. I think there are some concepts that are confusing you. All of the transgender individuals that I have known from before their transition pass as their new gender without any issues. The only way anybody would know if you told them.
Story time:
You know how men always like to boast and compare their masculinity while drinking? Well, one time we were out drinking with friends. A man from my high-school (who was a girl last I saw him) was with us. He is quite manly, has a beard and looks like what you would expect a fashionable young man in his mid twenties to look like.
After a few beer one of the guys turns toward the man in question and, without having a clue that this is a transgender individual and tells him: "We know how it is with you lucky guys who hit the genetic lottery and are so manly. With a beard like that I bet all the girls must be throwing themselves at you. I must be half the man you are." ... My jaw dropped.
It was a ridiculous situation to witness but it shows just how easy it is to be next to someone who has gone through a complete transition without having a clue. If you live in a city, I'm sure that you have called at least one or two transgender individuals by their new pronoun without being aware of it.
I do the same, but also for cis people. It makes life simpler.
That's an opinion.
Gender is defined as: the state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones).
For most people, your gender and your sex are congruent. For others, it isn't.
Even if you don't agree: Why do you care?
Definitions are also not fact, by definition.
There are plenty of valid arguments for calling trans people the gender they want to be. This isn't one since it isn't going to convince anyone who doesn't already agree with you.
Edit: The why do you care part is a valid argument, was addressing the rest of your comment
No. We don't. Transwomen are welcome in our bathrooms, locker rooms, and spas.
I sincerely believe that the vast majority of women are tired of being used as an excuse for bigotry.
I definitely understand the downvotes now that the comment has been flagged and is not able to be seen.
What do your greater political fears have to do with treating others with respect?
> I should think women care a lot that men are now allowed in their spaces based on an internal sense of "gender".
Are you talking about that bathroom debacle? I've got a simple solution: http://scott.arciszewski.me/blog/2017/03/trans-bathroom-righ...
https://www.psychiatry.org/File%20Library/Psychiatrists/Prac...
It is important to note that gender nonconformity is not in itself a mental disorder. The critical element of gender dysphoria is the presence of clinically significant distress associated with the condition.