I am of the somewhat progressive-unpopular opinion that some people have an unhealthy interest in how they label themselves and how others perceive them, and in the attempts to be supportive the popular opinion is doing more harm than good. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not against anyone with a certain genotype or phenotype having any particular interest in whom they love, how they dress, their hobbies, behaviors, etc. as long as they don’t put hurts on other people. I do have doubts about the amount of “identifying” people do with their preferences though. It can be a subtle point that is hard to make just right without getting pitchforks raised, I’m never sure i’ve done it right.
I've noticed this too, it's not only gender ideology but racial ideology and more. Seems to be form of ideological "pilot-induced oscillation"[0]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot-induced_oscillation
"[Pilot-induced oscillation] occurs when the pilot of an aircraft inadvertently commands an often increasing series of corrections in opposite directions, each an attempt to cover the aircraft's reaction to the previous input with an over correction in the opposite direction" (in this case the "pilot" is "society")
In the beginning the radical idea is a basic kind of equality where some kind of person shouldn't be disadvantaged for some characteristic.
There is then a growth phase where many people join and small specific victories turn into general victories.
There is then a shrinking phase where people leave the movement or lose zeal as general victories are had.
The movement keeps much of its ideology capital and with the more moderate people losing interest, the median ideology moves towards special privileges for hyper-specific characteristics defended by a very real "the problem still exists".
The end stage is a movement that tries to conflate its extreme views as being equally as beyond question and equally morally right as the views during the growth phase, and you get conflict when people have a hard time sorting out the complexities of which is right and which is too far... and you get the backlash where the basic right is threatened by the connection with the extreme views... and so it goes.
The 21st century is the century of complexity, the basic problems are often solved and the complex ones need more nuance than the basic ones took... and the struggle is getting this point across that things aren't as simple as they were before.
While in tech i’ve been gently exploring the idea of freaking out my thoughts into something publishable.
Sometimes HN is an exercise in attempting to communicate how i think and getting feedback.
At least when it comes to America - there are some very deeply entrenched societal issues that we'd need to resolve to achieve anything near equality including generations of depriving wealth accumulation in communities (i.e. Native Americans).
Is it really fair to say we've come nowhere since the 70s?
Nonetheless, sophisticated social engineering attempts or clandestine social research are certainly within the realm of discovering by a quick search of the news.
So their opinions aren't up for discussion. If you disagree with them, they feel offended and personally attacked.
https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-huma...
Suddenly we've got people so incapable of existing in an environment where there is gasp some disagreement, that folks go around saying that not being supportive of somebody's opinions and preferences is a violation of human rights.
That isn't explicitly what you are saying, but you are also very much not leaving room for that.
People have largely lost the ability to disagree, and to differentiate between somebody who disagrees with them and somebody who thinks their opinions and preferences shouldn't exist... and at the same time we have lots of people all over the spectrum who really do think only their way of thinking is acceptable and nobody who thinks differently should exist.
It is unacceptable and more pointedly, unsustainable from all sides. You can't have a society survive where people only think one way of thinking can survive.
> Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law
That could very likely be a result of the traumatic oppression that much of the world subsists within.
> The problem is that people entangle their sense of identity with their opinions.
When two ethical principles are in conflict, one has to take an even harder look at the formal ethics to either choose between the principles or to synthesize a newer, more informed principle.
Typically something like that ends up in the court of law, but academic philosophy and scientific ethics researchers often contribute meaningful avenues of avoiding the need for the application of justice to redress harms by providing legislatures with more clear ethical principles upon which to build their legal frameworks for justice.
To be sure, I think people's opinions about things (and any sense of identity they have in those opinions) are sacred and inviolate as far as social structure and society are concerned. It's morally and civilly wrong to treat people badly on the basis of their opinions.
I was just pointing out how some people take it so far that one can't even have a thoughtful discussion with them in which one is taking up a contrary position without them feeling offended (and perhaps even angry/combative). Some people even try to shut down contrarians. To such people I'd say: calm down and discuss your point of view civilly. The truth is strong enough to stand on its own without your non-discursive help.
Similar to how the Capitol Riots could be construed as a social engineering failure of conservative political forces.
There is, for example, a fairly famous author (Ayaan Hirsi Ali), who is a Somali ex-Muslim, and she says she was having really hard time from the Dutch left when she lived there. Her ideas simply did not fit the preconceived concept of an African immigrant.
* self labeling
* others labeling you
* how others are labeled
any of the three can become unhealthy when overdone, and different people have different amounts of interest in the three. They each have a set of problems associated with them.
I wouldn't go out of my way to say any one in particular is more of an issue. (i.e. they're all issues in different ways)
How does this story go if they hadn't been obsessed with their identity as Muslims or if they had gone to the local mosque to ask about Islam instead of seeking out radical Muslims online?
Lots of them just "work" of doing nothing but protesting, so once they get something they wanted, they have to move to the next thing.
For example, they start by making changes to the language so, instead of being "los" (male) or "las" (female) they started to say "les" (does not exists in spanish) as they say it is more inclusive (nor male nor female).
But it is not that they say "los", "las", and "les", they want you to say "les". So first it was an "innocent" thing, and now they are trying to pass laws and indoctrinate everyone, included kids from any age, 6 years old or less.
For example, thief's use their own words and it is not considered part of Spanish for example.
They started with gender ideology and then started to escalate. And it is not more inclusive if you force me to leave my believes. If you want to be called "les", and you ask nice, I will probably have no problem. Now, if you want me to embrace that "les" is more inclusive because you just say so and you force me to do it, is not part of Spanish.
A similar thing happened with abortion. First they started saying it has to be legal, then that it had to be free, and then that if you are a doctor and you don't agree with abortion you have to do it anyway (they force you to do it by law).
Tried to guess which country you were referring to but couldn't find concrete info after a bit of googling.
I don't think the comparison between using more inclusive language to refer to people, and you being forced to abandon your beliefs, makes much sense. Putting aside potential issues with beliefs and their effect on a person's treatment of those around them, no one is forcing you to stop believing whatever it is you believe.
Potentially limited may be how you treat or talk to people, but that is a separate limit than what you are allowed to believe, since once it becomes words or actions, now it's not just in your head but out in reality and potentially affecting others.
MY MISTAKE: apparently the law does allow a doctor to say no for his believes. I cannot edit the previous post.
Again, so this people today say that you have to say "les", what prevents me from saying I am not filling included, I want everybody to start saying "lus" or "chimichangas" for that matter? The problem for me is that they force you to behave however they want you to behave.
There are plenty of other words (including adjectives) that you can use as honorifics - you've got Little John (and Lil Jon), Short Bob and Tall Bob.
I think it's fair to move away from Mr. and Mrs. being as prominent as they are.
One of the two nouns is an appositive, but it's never been too clear to me which is which in English grammar. In my native tongue it definitely doesn't seem to be the case that Mr. modifies Smith, as our equivalent to Mr. is a common noun that is used to refer to any male human.
There is a real gap in the archaic forms of Romance languages when it comes to the level of gender sophistication that was in the even more archaic Latin.
Modern languages are evolving rapidly and it is entirely within the realm of reasonableness to expect that humanity will tend towards meta-evolving it’s own languages.
But I am not well read in linguistics and suspect that Noam Chomsky has already written a book on this topic.
No, s/he doesn't because is talking nonsense: conscientious objectors rights/persons are protected in Argentina by its Constitution and plenty of case law.
Re: Abortion: Doctors can (and have) very much deny to perform or "facilitate" abortions on moral or religious grounds but by law ("Ley del Aborto") they also have the legal obligation to refer the woman/patient WITHOUT delay of any kind to another doctor or another hospital (mostly public ones) to have the procedure.
Just no need to be smartass about "nonsense". I read it somewhere and I don't follow all the news all the time.
Anyone can, of course, use any weird construction they want, it is just not correct Czech.
But he post of the other member was about that languages naturally evolve, which is true, but this is forced and unatural.
How is this different than any other term that was coined?
> didn't catch, they then moved to "todxs", didn't catch, then they said "todes", and because people don't naturally use it. They even use it wrongly all the time
This sounds like natural evolution to me. People try different terms until one sticks.
> But more importantly, unnatural because if you have to impose it and call me names for not using it, you are doing it wrong.
Why? You're calling their use of language "wrong". Can't they do the same?
This may be true in case of English, but not necessarily in case of many national languages.
> This may be true in case of English, but not necessarily in case of many national languages.
Counterexample: The German Rechtschreibreform of 1996 was mainly retracted after a decade of popular resistance. Seems even languages that are ostensibly “regulated by a central authority” in the end follow the will of those who use the language.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_orthography_reform_of_1...
I meant counterexample in the sense of "language that does at least ostensibly have a central authority (the Duden) still in the end having to bow to the will of the language-using public". English isn't a counterexample of that, since it doesn't even remotely claim to be governed by any central authority.
> ...languages are primarily spoken. An orthography reform won't ever change how people speak, so whether the German one was successful or not is irrelevant
"Primarily" is not the same as "only". You haven't heard a word I've said, have you? And yet here we are, talking to each other...
You seem to accuse them of having an agenda, as if this is a bad thing on its own, but it's clear you too have an agenda of your own. But while theirs, misguided or not, is based on acceptance, what's yours based on?
Trying to indoctrinate kids to use a non-gender specific term? It seems like using the term indoctrinate seems a tad strong.
In general they are "militants" of the Peronist party.
There are videos and books for kids that shows Peron, Evita, and more recently our current Vice President as heroes and such.
https://i.imgur.com/zgVUcjS.jpg There it literally says: Peron is the leader, everybody loves Peron, everybody sings long live Peron!, long live the leader! hurrah!
https://i.imgur.com/gkqespa.jpg This one is about Evita, Peron's wife: Evita loves the kids. The boys and girls love Eva. Long live Evita! Hurrah! Hurrah!
This two are pages of books for kids of elementary school from 60 something years ago.
However, you can still see in school:
https://i.imgur.com/MJuFrQx.jpg This one shows Cristina Kirchner, our current VP, in a book that tries to "leftiside" the kids.
https://i.imgur.com/YIgEDja.jpg that is the results, kids with the "La Campora" a militant group from peronism.
https://i.imgur.com/Ei2VWG0.jpg And there again.
It is what has brought Argentina to is knees.
This is probably a sign of my advancing age, I'm probably a prude by today's standards, but I simply don't find these subjects for semi-public or even public discussion with strangers.
As much as we'd like to believe we have no biases, we do. Straight is the societal default. People who are not straight and just want to answer a question about their dinner run the risk of a bad reaction if the person they're talking to just happens to be homophobic.
Someone might prefer to get that reaction in a controlled setting, when they've emotionally prepared themselves for it, not during the course of answering a routine question about dinner. So that's why someone you're just starting to get to know might prefer to specifically tell you that they're gay, rather than waiting for it to just come up as an incidental fact during conversation.
This isn't about them assuming that you specifically care about their sexuality. It's about them being able to determine if you are a person with whom is safe to share details about their life... innocuous details that a straight person would take for granted as being safe to share.
Unfortunately, that doesn't mean there isn't any bigotry and associated violence against gays, lesbians, trans people etc. I wished that were true, alas here too we have our share of people who simply won't recognize reality. But I'm fairly sure that the people who are at risk of such violence here have their own ways of ensuring the chances of encountering people who are prone to acting on their bigotry in non-safe settings are reduced to a minimum, it's out in public where the risk is largest, and that increases as you get away from the larger population centers.
The bigger issue in 'coming out' here is to deal with such people in a family setting, that's where bigotry can and still does cause significant hardship.
If I would meet some stranger or some person in a work setting their sexuality would not be on my list of things I would be interested in, either we don't know each other that well or we have at best a working relationship, a job to get done, and to move the subject to sexuality would be - according to me - inappropriate.
(I know a lot of people "come out" as various things in a mere bid for attention... I'll leave that issue aside.)
If I knew someone casually for a while who never talked about his/her sexuality, but one day they said "I never said this before, but I'm a heterosexual", I'd certainly feel awkward about it. Why did he/she say that to me?
To take it further, why phrase it "I am ..." instead of "I have ... desires"? If the latter sounds awkward, why is the former any less awkward?
All of society is structured around your identity. Like the fish, you can't even see the water because you have always been in it. I'm unlikely to help you see the water, but let me at least try.
If you meet a friend, he might comment he saw a movie with his new girlfriend. He shows you a photo on his phone and you say she's really cute and nice catch. He asks if you want to grab a beer later. You say you have to pick up your wife from the airport later and pick up the kids from their school.
All of this, the girlfriend, the comment she's cute, the wife the kids, they are your life. It is who you are. If someone asks what you are doing later, it's all you have to say, because that's what you do. It is your identity.
I have a partner. We have lived together for 14 years. In order to tell you anything about myself, I have to tell you about him too. It is my life. It is what I do. This is who I am.
Coming out is something you do with each and every new person you meet. I am not rubbing your face in my sexuality. I'm just talking about me. If I tell you I went out for lunch, but avoid telling you with who, that is in the closet. If I tell you it was with my boyfriend, that is out of the closet.
So yup, done hiding here, and not going to start again because some people might be clueless or treat me as less.
Edit: nice, downvotes. Did I make you feel silly for listening to taking points from bigots?
It's distressing the degree to which people want to blame others for their identities while regarding their own as some kind of fundamental default of nature. It's only "identity politics" when it's somebody else's identity.
Edit: to the people down voting my mother-in-law, she is a kind and caring woman!
Many children have been disowned by their parents because they fell in love with someone from the wrong family. There is no shortage of thousand year old stories and plays describing this exact situation. So, the idea that "Like the fish, you can't even see the water because you have always been in it." doesn't really resonate with me. That doesn't mean our society is free from discrimination and unfair treatment, but painting people with a broad brush serves to alienate those who might be your allies, and is ironically the very thing you are advocating against.
To me it's pretty clear the person I was responding to had zero frame of reference to what discrimination feels like, which is why I said so. I really don't know how to get that through to a person with words alone. I think there needs to be a parallel experience to build on.
It's no broad brush to say that a person who thinks sexual orientation has no bearing on identity must be squarely within the favored majority.
I sympathize with you here, I really do: but making such broad assumptions is a bad way to foster real, productive conversations. Identity and queerness are deeply personal topics with all sorts of nuance and interplay between them. I appreciate that you're living your truth, but coming off with this "scorched earth" rhetoric isn't going to win you any fans.
> It's only weird to you because you are almost certainly straight, cis and male. Let me explain.
I don't think that's a fair assessment, and it's certainly not a true generalization. I'm not cis, but I completely understand how weird the concept of "coming out" is. Nobody wants to put you back in the closet, we just want to discuss how much the current paradigm surrounding sexuality sucks.
I agree that "coming out" takes some explanation. You're going to have an easier time explaining it to some people than others. A shared experience certainly helps! Otherwise you're left trying to explain what blue looks like to someone who's never seen it.
Why does the current paradigm suck? There is unprecedented LGBT acceptance, and that does not suck. There are no sucky paradigms around jeans vs. khakis because there isn't a cohort of people who would prefer if khakis were banned in public.
From great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandparent post:
> This was ironically one of the things that was hardest about coming out as gay, for me. Nobody ever treated me the same way again. I was either uncomfortably praised or silently judged, with practically no in-between. Suffice to say, my sexuality is on a need-to-know basis, now.
Maybe read it after applying the principle of charity, without assuming the writer is angrily banging on the keyboard, and instead is being thoughtful and trying to teach?
I wasn't thinking as much about normal conversations - "I was at lunch with my boyfriend", etc. It's one thing to say that, it's quite another to make statements to people about what sort of sex you want to have -- that's what I find awkward.
I guess the takeaway is that sex is pretty central to civilization and society, as it's a prerequisite to and determinant of family structure. It really is part of our identity.
Directly coming out to you, when they are comfortable and emotionally prepared for it, is a way to avoid a traumatic reaction during normal conversation.
Beyond that, when you've been forced to repress some part of yourself due to social expectations, it can be a big relief to be able to specifically tell people about that part of you, rather than just letting it come up obliquely during conversation when you happen to refer to a same-sex partner.
> To take it further, why phrase it "I am ..." instead of "I have ... desires"? If the latter sounds awkward, why is the former any less awkward?
I wish we could do that too, but if I told that to people now I'm gay and a freak. Society won't care one way or the other, because queerness is political now. You're either with "them" or against "us", and never the two shall meet.
That's just my view on it though. I'm only 1 (one) gay person out of millions, so take my anecdata with a grain of salt.
That is an uncommonly insightful and empathetic characterization.
Though I also approve of the intention of GP to understand the situation from their parents' perspective.
Also, yes it is weird that sexuality and identity are intertwined, but that is not something that is new and it is something that is tied to all sexualities, including heterosexuals.
> Why did he/she say that to me?
Isn't this just the process of getting to know someone? As you get to know someone, you share more information about yourself. I think it's a pretty normal desire for people you spend time around to understand you, and part of that is understanding the way you relate to other people.
It can also have the effect of making a relationship more close...sharing something intimate with someone can strengthen a friendship (or, obviously, break it in some cases).
That's because the dominant mode of society in _most_ cultures involves a heterosexual identity; it's just so deeply embedded in culture that most people can't tell. For the longest time, it was (and still is in many cultures) socially acceptable for men to ogle women. Why? Because there was a tacit understanding that part of being a man meant being hypersexual, and because all men are attracted to women (in this trope), ogling women is just part of "being a man". This ties a man's behavior and identity with his sexuality.
"When are you going to find a good girl to marry?"
"Mom, I'm gay".
For example.
Because the choice is either to hide important aspects of yourself, or else come out, whether that's explicitly by saying something, or implicitly by your actions.
In my case, if I didn't explicitly come out as nonbinary / trans, the change in my wardrobe and appearance was going to "out" myself regardless. It seemed healthier and emotionally safer to be upfront about it with the people I know.
In your example, a person doesn't have to "come out" as heterosexual, they can just introduce their spouse, or mention who they are dating. Maybe in an ideal world that would be the case for everyone, but it's not today.
I definitely agree on this point, and what I find fascinating is that in my (albeit very limited) knowledge of French, instead of saying a phrase like "I am hungry", you say "j'ai faim", which has the literal translation of "I have hunger".
https://www.wordhippo.com/what-is/the/french-word-for-9a6e76...
Also, parents and relative reacting badly on finding out ypu are gay are not exactly unheard of. There are also plenty of accepting parents, sure. But as heterosexual, they already assume you are one and you dont have to guess whether it will be breaker for them or not.
Ideal solution, because the people who don't care also don't care to know. And those who do care definitely don't need to know.
I often wonder where this misconception originated: why do people think that "cis" is an acronym? What do they think it stands for? It's just a prefix; the antonym of "trans."
(And don't get me started on "Oh-bee-gee-why-en", often capitalised as "OB-GYN" in writing... Sheesh, what an idiotic spelling of "gynecologist"!)
This is really the best solution, to the extent possible. On the internet no one knows you're a dog, as the saying goes.
It honestly feels extremely regressive.
I think it is more similar to race-blind versus race-conscious policies - along with gender-blind versus gernder-concious.
Is it better to assume that men and women are pretty much the same in academia and each are capable of the same thing? Or is it better to assume that men and women are intrinsically better at different things with certain characteristics.
I think the answer is in the middle but clearly there has been a move in the last five years to say that gender inherently effects your worldview/characteristics while simultaneously saying that men/women should have equal outcomes in all fields. Its not internally consistent.
This is something I think a lot of people misunderstand about [id]-consciousness. Is it better to assume that you as an individual have biases that align/oppose with overarching biases in our society, or is it better to assume that you alone, or society at large, are bias-free? Can we address inequality by treating everybody the same in this moment and ignoring the historical context they exist in, or do observed biases need to be compensated for in some manner?
This is different than whether the gating on biological sex makes sense.
(Note I don't mean strictly mechanical stuff like peeing your name into the snow, I'm talking about things like teachers "not wasting time on helping girls understand math"[1] - because I suspect that teachers not helping girls with math is probably more causal to fewer women in math than their vaginas.
[1] I've personally heard math teachers say this, and heard stories of others saying it too.)
However, what happens if this is completely eliminated and there are still discrepancies in grades, degrees, income? Many would say then that the subject matter is tilted towards men or women and needs to be reformed. Those who argue that position are arguing for gender conscious policy. Which is definitely not the same as gender neutral policy (which was the most popular 15 years ago when I was in school - but things seem to be shifting towards more conscious policy)
I don't care what gender someone calls themselves, and as a nice person I'll try to remember and use it, so long as they don't attempt to get me fired if I get it wrong.
Conflating these two things is precisely why there's a backlash against CRT et al. from otherwise left-leaning individuals.
You're hitting the nail in the head that the problem is with the anti-trans person making a stink about it. That is where the real burden is, and that is who is to blame for the toxic work environment. The bully is the problem, not their target.
Imagine a Mr. Jones who does not agree with the basic premise of gender theory, and believes — say — that transgendered folk are suffering from a mental illness. Mr. Jones has a transgendered colleague with whom he is generally cordial, though not particularly warm. One day, said colleague learns about Mr. Jones opinion, and decides she will assert herself and “call out” Mr. Jones if she is ever offended by his behavior or speech.
One day, Mr. Jones refers passingly to this colleague as ‘he’. For the sake of argument, let us assume this was not meant to be disrespectful, but that this utterance is instead the result of being distracted, and that the colleague has some masculine features. In other words, it was uttered unthinkingly — an honest mistake.
Offended, Mr. Jones’ colleague confronts him publicly and berates him for his behavior. She demands to be called ‘she’, proceeds to shame him on social media, and demands a public apology.
Mr. Jones feels this is an unfair and disproportionate response. Moreover, he now believes her demands to be retaliatory. He firmly but politely refuses. The conflict is referred to HR, and Mr. Jones is ordered to use his colleague’s preferred pronoun. Mr. Jones’ ethics preclude compelled speech. He refuses and is fired.
My questions for you are simple:
1. Do you think it is appropriate that Mr. Jones be fired?
2. Should the law hold him accountable?
3. Should Mr. Jones’ colleague be able to sue her employer if Mr. Jones is not fired?
4. Should she be able to sue Mr. Jones?
The fact that I’ve depicted Mr. Jones as cordial and well-intentioned (despite holding a potentially distasteful opinion) and his colleague as bellicose and vengeful is no accident. This situation will necessarily arise, unless you somehow believe people can’t both be kind and disagree with you on gender-theory.
At any rate, you will find that many (most?) people object to CRT and the likes because they worry that it gives spiteful people the means to dispose of unsavory (though not necessarily bad) people like Mr. Jones. From there, they worry that they might be next. I submit that this should worry all of us, even you.
Sure. Not for originally misspeaking, but for intentionally harassing her afterwards.
> 2. Should the law hold him accountable?
Of course, just like the above.
> 3. Should Mr. Jones’ colleague be able to sue her employer if Mr. Jones is not fired?
This one's hard to say -- but only in the exact same way all “how responsible is an employer for the actions of an employee?” matters are. Which has nothing to do with whether the employee in your example was in the wrong, because he obviously was.
> 4. Should she be able to sue Mr. Jones?
Of course.
All in all: What a hilariously silly, contrived, and wrong-headed example. How could you not notice, while typing it in, that all it shows is how ludicrously wrong your position is?
The point in this example is that the harasser-harassee relationship is exactly reversed.
It's revealing that you find the act of using the wrong pronoun to be harassment, but public shaming at the workplace and on social media to be acceptable.
I see we fundamentally disagree, which is fine. I do hope, however, that you can see why many of us disagree with you, and don't want your sociological theories enshrined into law.
And I'm sorry to disagree even on this, but no, it is not "fine": What you are disagreeing with aren't any "sociological theories" I am trying to get "enshrined into law", but with logic and reality.
2. Your simplistic theories about how people ought to be should go out the window when you meet and interact with a real person who is different from you. Think of it as avoiding making a bad impression on someone who has just as valid a reason to be who they are. Yeah, maybe this is new and uncomfortable for you, but that is how meeting anyone is.
But I am talking about honest mistakes. I am worried that people such as yourself are incapable or unwilling to distinguish them from actual bona fide harassment.
>Nobody is putting cisgendered people in jail for a slip of the tongue.
People are already being fired and cancelled for such things. This is precisely why we're having this debate.
This is precisely why many people — myself included — are terrified at the prospect of laws of company policies that attempt to regulate such speech.
There is? What is it?
In a couple of child comments you agree with some other commenter that it's “very subtle”... I'd argue that of course it is; most non-existent things are. Before rejoicing in your sophisticated ability to detect oh-so-subtle differences, please make sure there is something to detect in the first place. One of the best ways to make sure one has got something right is to explain it to others. So: What difference?
(Please don't say XY chromosomes, you don't do a genetic test on everyone you meet.)
A her is someone who was born with a vagina.
The very, very few people who don't fit clearly into either of these categories (intersex) are exceptions and can be handled on a case-by-case basis.
They are immutable because their reproductive role is immutable. A her can never impregnate. A him can never gestate.
(Either can choose not to perform their particular ability, or lose the ability to do so, but that doesn't change the meaning of these words.)
If a car is broken down, is it no longer a car?
Does it become an airplane?
As for him gestating I encourage you to read more Sci-Fi.
I have a friend who was named at birth after their absentee parent and really dislikes ever being called by that name. It is important and polite to use names that people personally prefer within reason.
And if you really feel that your gender is being intruded upon by trans people then i encourage you to find something more meaningful and unique to attach your identity to, because your manhood feeling threatened is not a respectable reason to deny trans people their identity.
I was going to ask you the same!
Edit: as pointed out below, gender roles are something we've made up, but preferences and behavior themselves (which we're calling gender) are not. Still separate from sex.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with a feminine man or a masculine woman, people can behave however they wish regardless of biology. But the most feminine man on the planet is still a man and saying so shouldn't turn you into a pariah, it's true after all.
Imagine we came up with 'Gender' like terms for other physical characteristics, it seems to me like the logic quickly breaks down when you think about it-
Gender is to Sex as ____ is to Race as ____ is to Age as ____ is to Height as ____ is to Weight as ____ is to Eye Color etc.
Your analogies don’t apply because, with the exception of age (mental age vs. physical age), there is no mental analog to race, height, eye color, etc.
I’d analogize gender identity to sexual orientation: there is nothing physiological that distinguishes heterosexual people from homosexual people, but the former are hardwired to be sexually attracted to members of the opposite sex, while the latter are hardwired to be sexually attracted to members of the same sex.
Why? What specifically makes transrace/race-identity any less valid of a concept than transgender/gender-identity? You say there is no mental analog to race but there's just as much proof of that as there is for gender identity. I've always loved african-american music and culture, I use black slang a lot, I felt like I didn't fit in with my white peers growing up- maybe I identify as black and will designate myself as such on my job/college applications going forward. Who are you to tell me my race-identity isn't valid? Maybe I'm just hardwired that way.
>I’d analogize gender identity to sexual orientation: there is nothing physiological that distinguishes heterosexual people from homosexual people, but the former are hardwired to be sexually attracted to members of the opposite sex, while the latter are hardwired to be sexually attracted to members of the same sex.
If there is nothing physiological to make that determination I think 'hardwired' isn't the right term
Because there aren’t any (or infinitesimally few) people who believe from a very young age that their “race identity” doesn’t match their genetically defined race. Gender dysphoria is rare but not infinitesimally so (~1% of the population), and it usually first emerges in childhood.
> If there is nothing physiological to make that determination I think 'hardwired' isn't the right term
Sorry, I was a bit sloppy with my language. I should have written “there is nothing grossly physiological that distinguishes heterosexual people from homosexual people.” Colloquially, we don’t generally consider neurology to be physiological, since we don’t yet have the technology to identify subtle differences in neural topology. Doesn’t mean that neurological phenomena aren’t hardwired, and thus “physiological” on a microscopic level we aren’t yet able to detect. As an extreme example, mental retardation is certainly hardwired, even though there’s often nothing grossly physiological (i.e. detectable physical brain abnormalities) that causes it.
I suspect that as science and medicine advance, we will identify the neural wiring patterns that determine one’s sexuality and gender identity (assuming we are allowed to study such things), at which point we can actually point to a definitively physiological determinant of both.
That's exactly the point. If someone's "gender identity" doesn't refer any observable characteristic other than their "gender identity", then the entire concept is circularly defined and therefore meaningless. It's like if I were to say my biological height is 5'7" but my "height identity" is 6'3". What meaning does "height identity" have and why should anyone take a concept like this seriously?
The left and center has decided it is not a joke to call someone who had a penis at birth a her, nobody will laugh at you why are you resisting being courteous?
It's as if there were two concepts, "race" and "grace", and you could be "biologically" white but "identify" as black, or "height" and "gheight", and you could be "factually" 180cm tall but "identify" as 165cm.
(This is why trans-exclusionary feminists exist, because the existence of trans people nullifies their belief that gender is 100% a social construct.)
Huh? How does that logically follow? (Hint: It doesn't.)
Feels more like it's the other way around, that the existence of gender dysphoria proves that gender is a social (and psychological?) construct: If gender were always the same as biological sex, there would be no feeling of conflict between them. That some people do feel such a conflict shows that they are not always the same. Therefore they cannot both be purely biologically determined.
Maybe it would be easier for you to grok if you thought of it not as “gender conflicting with itself”, but think of it as — privately rename it to — “sex-gender dysphoria”?
> (This is why trans-exclusionary feminists exist, because the existence of trans people nullifies their belief that gender is 100% a social construct.)
On the contrary, that seems to be exactly what the TERFs don’t believe. They should just come out and admit that “if gender is a social construct, then we’re ‘feminists’ not in terms of female- gendered people but only in terms of people of female sex.” Which, since feminism is about the role of females in society, i.e. very much a social issue, would show them up as pretty damn silly... But that’s their problem.
The last sentence does not logically follow from the other two. Lots of physical/neurological properties are correlated in the vast majority of people (e.g. biological sex/the sex you're attracted to, age/cognitive ability); the fact that they’re occasionally inconsistent in some people has no bearing on whether they’re biologically determined.
By your logic, sexual orientation is also a social construct. Most males are attracted to females, and vice versa. Using your words, “if the sex you’re attracted to were always consistent with biological sex, there would be no feeling of conflict between them. That some people do feel such a conflict shows that they are not always consistent. Therefore they cannot both be purely biologically determined.” How does that logically follow? (Hint: it doesn’t)
> privately rename it to — “sex-gender dysphoria”?
That’s exactly my point: trans people have the body of sex A, but the brain that people with a sex B body typically have. Just as gay people have the body of sex A and the brain wired to be attracted to sex A, which is again something that sex B people typically have.
>They should just come out and admit that “if gender is a social construct, then we’re ‘feminists’ not in terms of female- gendered people but only in terms of people of female sex.”
Feminism is about achieving equality between genders by advocating for women, who have typically been marginalized in society. If gender is 100% a social construct, then there should be zero difference between the brains of men and women, which makes it a lot easier to argue that they should occupy identical roles in society and thus be truly equal. The fact that trans people provide strong evidence that male (gender) and female (gender) brains are fundamentally different scares some people (i.e. TERFs), and their solution is to dismiss trans people rather than realize that different genders can still be treated equally by society even if their brains are wired differently.
> Feminism is about achieving equality between genders by advocating for women, who have typically been marginalized in society.
No, that's my point: For "TERFs", feminism is apparently not about achieving equality between genders, but about achieving equality between sexes.
As for the rest... I'm not up to going through it all in detail, but on the whole it feels like about the same level of misunderstanding.
I have problems on this front though, I'm pan myself and gender seems really insanely trivial to me - I do understand that my experience is not the common one though.
If gender is distinct from sex, then can you explain the qualifying characteristics of a "gender"?
What is the definition of "woman"? What is the definition of "man"?
Wearing high heels isn't related to being a woman intrinsically, and you don't have to be a woman to wear high heels.
The way I see it, either:
- ‘gender’ is a synonym for ‘sex’
- ‘gender’ is being misused as a synonym ‘gender roles’, which are defined by one’s sex.
If that’s not correct, then what is the actual correct definition of gender?
- man/woman
- male/female
- masculine/feminine
There is a concept of grammatical gender, where words can be masculine or feminine (or neuter in some cases, and there are other systems as well with different words). You don't talk about man words or male words, it's masculine. So, I tend to think of gender as masculine or feminine. That covers most people (although not all: nonbinary, gender fluid, genderqueer, etc. are all real).
I tend to think of sex as male or female. At least for human beings, that covers most people (not all, intersex is a real thing, and there are other unusual but 'natural' configurations as well)
So one way to look at this - which again, is probably not exactly correct, but it's how I think - male/masculine and female/feminine are what we've traditionally thought of as man and woman. But, I think it's pretty clear now that we need to account for the other combinations, i.e. male/feminine and female/masculine. That's where cis- and trans- come in: male/masculine is a cis male, female/masculine is a trans male, both are subsets in the set of all men. Same with women.
We've got nonbinary, genderqueer, etc. as well. I don't really understand the latter, but the former is pretty easy to explain: imagine being told you had to be masculine or feminine, and your response was "No, I don't. I prefer or reject some of each."
Overall, to me, gender is about what you like and how you behave, while sex is more biology (i.e., what's in your pants). It's easier to understand the arguments if you completely separate gender from sex, and don't make assumptions about one based on the other. In fact, I think the assumptions - e.g. gender roles - are the entire problem, and if people would just stop with that, a lot of things would get better.
Sure, “Gender” = “What gender role(s?) a person plays” is one way to put the social definition of gender. (Seems pretty succinct and workable, so you can drop the “misused”.)
Here's where you go wrong, though: Gender, in terms of what gender roles people play, is not always determined purely by biological sex.
There, no need to be confused any more. HTH!
You don't have the right to compel speech in other people in any way. You don't even have the right to make people call you by your birth name. Some jurisdictions like NYC have laws against malicious miss-naming by an employer or landlord, but even that only applies if they essentially make it a harassment campaign.
Like, "compel speech"? Really? You were going to use a pronoun anyways. It's just such a simple ask for the sake of politeness but you frame it as "compel speech"? This idea that it's such a burden is obviously contrived.
> Are you in prison or competing at the highest level of sports?
I assume they're dating.
My point in asking about those edge cases is to say that it's not an excuse for the wide-ranging ways we torment trans people as a society.
> > Are you in prison or competing at the highest level of sports?
> I assume they're dating.
Then the time to rise a stink and become loudly anti-trans is surely when the law starts to mandate[1] you dating them, or at the earliest, when it's starting to look as if the law is about to do so... But not before, right?
[1]: Hnyuk, hnyuk.
We seem to be finding ourselves lacking the etiquette to deal with this situation. Can you do this in the workplace, yes, with the right people and relationships. Can you treat trans people like this, yes, with the right people and relationships.
If ribbing someone causes them to get offended, you leave them alone or it is just bullying. If they come back at you, it's a game, a fun game that builds relationships with the right people.
This is a key element missing from the discussion. In some contexts being purposefully disrespectful is a good thing.
This also means you need to operate in an environment where it's okay to make a mistake, apologise and move on. You have to be able to read the person's response to attempt any of this. You cannot do that over text, so it can't be used online.
But... I have a name like David Goldsmith - common first name, two common syllable last name. People call me Dave, David, Davy, Goldsmith, and this one Indian coworker of mine always seems to call me Goldsith, which I think is cool because star wars, but also like wtf dude, you're missing the same letter every time.
The point is though, I don't really care what people call me. People call me a dozen different things nowadays. The last time I got bothered about what somebody was calling me, I was 12 and it was "Davy dumbsmith".
The point I was making is that giving someone a nickname they don't like is completely different from not calling someone a nickname they prefer.
Regarding nicknames, I do sometimes interact with people that have nicknames that I'm not comfortable with or the thought of using that name for them doesn't seem respectful. For example, I took a two week class that was taught by former astronaut Sherwood "Woody" Spring. His peers all called him Woody but it seemed too personal for the teach-student relationship we were in and I defaulted to calling him Mr. Spring. He didn't mind that. I suspect the majority of people that go by nicknames don't really mind when people call them by their given name or a formal version of their name.
Generally I think nicknames are just a bad analogy for gender, so we shouldn't use the comparison at all.
Please explain it to me because it seems awfully bigoted to perpetuate this myth that trans people are such a burden that we can't possibly treat them like how we treat each other.
Not the OP, but what a smug reply. This is not mathematics, you are not the professor, and it would be only fair if you started with your own description of said difference, as you see it. You cannot expect that everyone sees it in the same way, can you?
Do it, go ahead. Just do not avoid the topic anymore by acting as if it were unspeakable.
Do you think previously male transgender women should be permitted to enter women's athletic competition?
Do you think it is trans-phobic to say you wouldn't date someone who was transgender?
Do you think misgendering a transgender individual should be a "hatecrime"?
And this is what the debate is really about: authoritarian vs libertarian political attitudes. I’m certainly ready to have that debate, but it would require the “woke left” [0] to abandon the moral high-ground.
[0] There’s surely a better term to use, but I can’t think of it right now.
Where we seem to disagree is on the question of whether government, employers or other institutional powers have the power to silence those who don't see it our way. If we do indeed disagree, then by definition you lean towards authoritarian politics. You are willing to go further than I in restricting freedom of expression to defend trans people. You may even be right, but that makes you more authoritarian than me.
Why does this matter? Because it's the actual subject of debate. I want trans people to be treated with respect too, but my political opinion is that authoritarianism is the wrong way to achieve this outcome.
I think you will find that many people who reject identity politics / CRT / etc don't actually hate trans people. They fear authoritarian mobs and the governments they elect.
(Apologies for the multiple stealth-edits. It sometimes takes me a few tries to articulate my thoughts.)
But we live in an authoritarian system which limits the rights of transgender people by various means. It's better in the US than it is in the UK, which in turn is much better than Saudi Arabia. The Gender Critical folks want more authoritarianism. They want the government to decide your gender, and segregate transgender people from cisgender people.
Not at all, I promise.
If you reread, you'll surely notice the qualifier "seems". I used it precisely because I can't be sure what you actually think, and can therefore only talk about surface-level appearances. Please be assured that I am doing my best to interpret your comments charitably, and assuming the best of your character :)
>But we live in an authoritarian system which limits the rights of transgender people by various means.
I believe you are confusing authoritarianism with something else. Authoritarianism is roughly the idea that institutions (government, businesses, etc.) should exert more control over individuals. The presence of inequities don't qualify as authoritarianism on their own, and neither does outright discrimination. To illustrate: discriminating against a group doesn't imply that government should have more control over individuals. It's definitely bad, but it's something else.
I would urge you not to conflate the two, as this is precisely what prevents the majority of liberals from adhering to CRT et al.
>They want the government to decide your gender, and segregate transgender people from cisgender people.
I don't know if you're talking about the US, the UK or Saudi Arabia here, but in the US and UK -- two countries in which I have, incidentally, lived for quite some time -- this is not what the majority of CRT-critics want. The majority are attached to liberal values, and are concerned that the confusion of ideas that permeates CRT discourse (of which your earlier conflation is an example) lead its proponents to the conclusion that authoritarian measures are desirable.
Sorry, no. I'm not sure how many "seems" you've inserted since my first reading, but those two sentences are what I characterize as putting assumptions on me. You continue to respond to things I haven't said, so I'll stop trying. Have a nice day.
I can’t shake the feeling that you’re storming off to avoid having an actual conversation. Hopefully I’m wrong about that too.
After I pointed out that your assumptions were wrong (rendering, I don't know how much of, that comment nothingburger), you edited your post a bunch and act like I'm the weirdo for not liking what you've put in my mouth. After hedging a pile of ungenerous assumptions with "seems" (on the basis of a statement we appear to agree upon), you're now having so much trouble refraining from ungenerous assumptions that you continue to voice them behind another hedge. Does this help you understand why I'm not interested in further conversation?
Isn't it the default case that employers can set rules about how employees speak to each other? Do you see anything wrong with an employer saying "you must make a good-faith effort to call people by their preferred name and pronouns"?
Yes, I understand. But, much of the opposition you're seeing isn't because people are "against trans people". It's because they're opposed solving the problem of intolerance through authoritarian methods.
The proposed protections for trans people are in response to real acts of violence that are not in line with laws like the 14th Amendment which promotes equality for all people.
And let's remember that these laws to protect trans people are only being proposed. Many laws on the books are against trans people. What you're reacting to is social pressure to treat trans people with respect, not authoritarian legal pressure. If anyone is feeling authoritarian legal pressure it's trans people.
Of course not. I'm perhaps being an asshole, but authoritarianism is a concept applied to policymaking, not manners. It roughly translates to the belief that institutions should have more power over individuals. Calling people the wrong name, no matter how mean-spirited, is expressing no such belief.
The point is that certain things -- bad though they may be -- are not to be legislated. You may disagree with this premise, and you may even be correct, and that would definitionally make you lean towards authoritarianism.
To reiterate, many people -- myself included -- agree with you that it is unkind to call trans people the wrong name. Where you seem to disagree with us is that we find the prospect of things like compelled speech to be terrifying and fundamentally at odds with the principles of liberal government.
In fact, I could just as well retort that you are currently positioning yourself as an authority on becoming a authority, which is just as ludicrous, and just as irrelevant to the question at hand.
Again, this kind of conflation of ideas and Jesuit argumentation is precisely why CRT is opposed by a great many liberals.
When the presumption of ill intent (and not e.g. confusion or ignorance) is automatic, there’s not much left to discuss.
It’s worth remembering that cis children (and adults) are misgendered too, including for reasons as banal as unorthodox appearance or unusual names.
The purpose of these compelled speech laws is to deal with repeated discriminatory or repeated bullying behaviour. Not to give everyone a tool to denounce strangers and get them into trouble with the law .
Do you have any suggestions how what laws freithen you can be adjusted to make you more comfortable with them while allowing for harsher punishments for bullying/discriminatory due to them being a class worth protecting more?
By proxy, I might advocate that income inequality is too high, and that some form of wealth redistribution should be considered. You might say that, therefore, I ought to donate my entire salary to charities. Someone might do that, as a radical stand against capitalism, and I would support that. However, I would also support someone that is trying to seek better wages under the current system, even if they do support wealth redistribution on the wider political scale--in context, it's understandable.
Translating that back to the original space, it seems that you advocate that someone that might today identify as a trans woman might instead identify as a man (or person) with phenotypically female presentation, due to medical treatment, and with a significant number of traditionally feminine attributes, as 'personal characteristics shouldn't matter'. This would place them in the vanguard of challenging gender dynamics. I think that's admirable of people that choose to do that. I understand that many other trans folk want to challenge the status quo less severely, and identifying as their gender allows them increased safety, sanity, and happiness within the confines of the current world.
Yep, and the problem is that this is obviously a principal that is not going to be impartially implied, but instead that deference towards personal identity is going to be parceled out based on tribal lines - look how common it is for many on the left to argue that black conservatives are "not really black" (or maybe they're black, but not Black?)
The battle for trans rights is intertwined much more tightly with a battle for control of language - extending to affirmative demands that others deeply change their normal language to avoid giving unintentional offense - than any other civil rights push I can think of, and I wonder if this will become more commonplace in the future.