If you don't care how I feel, I'm willing to extend symmetrical courtesy. However, basic affordances accepting other people's differences seem like an excellent comprimise, and has worked quite well historically.
But here you are, acting like it's an undue burden and I should be ashamed. Why is that?
Convincing people to use gender-neutral pronouns for you and convincing them that you are not male are two entirely different things. That is all.
I would venture to guess that you have convinced zero people that you are not male, but I made no statement about how pronoun preferences are an undue burden or how you should be ashamed; you made that up yourself.
And I'm telling you that it definitely does.
> I would venture to guess that you have convinced zero people that you are not male
This is untrue. But it depends on the venue. And in many cases succeeding at this changes how people treat me.
> but I made no statement about how pronoun preferences are an undue burden or how you should be ashamed; you made that up yourself.
No. You're just here to represent the "I will never accept what you're saying" squad.
The question of whether you are a male or not is not dependent on whether I or anyone else accepts what you are saying. It is a material condition.
If we want to change words so that "male" is what you are talking about and e.g. "AMAB" is what I am talking about, so be it. The second is not dependent on what anyone believes or "assigns."
Ever produced small motile gametes? Then you're a male! Congrats!
That's almost certainly not what you meant, which is: "My worldview is that no one is allowed to opt out of my gender foreverwar because of how much I benefit from the status quo."
Fertility and reproduction have very little to do with 'gender' except where people attempting societal manipulation try and force it to. From a scientific perspective the correlations are minimal and difficult to measure.
For a computer person, your logic sure is weak.
"If you've ever produced small, motile gametes, then you're male."
"If you've never produced small, motile gametes, then you're not male."
P → Q does not entail ¬P → ¬Q. Literally 100-level propositional logic, here.
> Fertility and reproduction have very little to do with 'gender' except where people attempting societal manipulation try and force it to. From a scientific perspective the correlations are minimal and difficult to measure.
Who's talking about gender, here? I'm not.
I'm talking about sex; specifically, the material basis for reproductive roles and the exploitation of female (sorry, AFAB) reproductive function for the advantage of male (sorry, AMAB) people.
But nice try.
In any case, if you're talking about this ill-defined and frequently unverified concept of "sex" then I'm uninterested in talking with you further. You're don't have any interesting insight into the subject. You can barely keep it together explaining logical implication.
Please find someone more interested in this level of discourse. I'm bored with it.