Pronoun/Gender Wars Continue Apace

[Calm]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

What you can't deny is there seems to be a lot of anger about this issue.  The whole OP is designed to stir up anger.  It seems to be working from the comments I am reading even if some are a bit more subtle than others.

I am not seeing the anger you do. Why should we get angry about a conversation on a message board with people that have no impact on our lives elsewhere when we can just get up and walk away?  I don’t think anyone has ever been right when they have accused me of being upset or angry on this board. Doesn’t mean I haven’t been, but it appears either the people who do recognize when I get upset are kind enough not to say anything so I can cool off without embarrassment or it just doesn’t come through my public posts that much. 

There is really only one thing that pisses me off on the board and it doesn’t happen that often. I vent by reporting it (yes, it breaks board rules, but that is the only hint I am giving) and ranting to my family. I might get a bit OCD in my responses, but that happens in many other cases, so not a defining characteristic.  I don’t remember anyone commenting that I was angry during these times, though they might have in passing, but it is uncommon enough I can’t remember it. 
 

Tone is very hard to convey with simply words. Too often people insert emotion they expect to see into posts that are not that emotional.  People can be very interested in subjects and even invested without being emotional about them…I can go on for hours about the certain movie adaptations of Tolkien, but it isn’t going to raise my heartbeat one bit.
 

Whenever I read someone labeling another as angry, etc and I am not seeing where they are getting that impression, my mind always goes to “why do they need to see the other as emotional?”  Why insist something is obvious when it is not?  Why so certain?

It might be better if there was more emotion about this topic, passion can get change happening when reason can’t, but it isn’t helpful to imagine it is there when it isn’t as that diverts attention from what is useful to discuss. 

Edited December 19, 2022 by Calm

[SeekingUnderstanding]

2 hours ago, gav said:

e. they knowingly make themselves accessible to a well known criminal element then definitely some of that is on them  

And for those that live in those neighborhoods, shame on them for being poor. And the Christians targeted in Muslim countries? Why don’t they just move!? They know the risks. And all those women in Iran asking for human decency? They get beat up and jailed by the authorities. Yep that’s on them. 
 

That’s some messed up twisted backwards logic. 

[california boy]

29 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am not seeing the anger you do. Why should we get angry about a conversation on a message board with people that have no impact on our lives elsewhere when we can just get up and walk away?  I don’t think anyone has ever been right when they have accused me of being upset or angry on this board. Doesn’t mean I haven’t been, but it appears either the people who do recognize it are kind enough not to say anything so I can cook off without embarrassment or it just doesn’t come through my public posts that much. 

There is really only one thing that pisses me off on the board and it doesn’t happen that often. I vent by reporting it (yes, it breaks board rules, but that is the only hint I am giving) and ranting to my family. I might get a bit OCD in my responses, but that happens in many other cases, so not a defining characteristic.  I don’t remember anyone commenting that I was angry during these times, though they might have in passing, but it is uncommon enough I can’t remember it. 
 

Tone is very hard to convey with simply words. Too often people insert emotion they expect to see into posts that are not that emotional.  People can be very interested in subjects and even invested without being emotional about them…I can go on for hours about the certain movie adaptations of Tolkien, but it isn’t going to raise my heartbeat one bit.
 

Whenever I read someone labeling another as angry, etc and I am not seeing, my mind always goes to “why do they need to see the other as emotional?”  Why insist something is obvious when it is not?  Why so certain?

It might be better if there was more emotion about this topic, passion can get change happening when reason can’t, but it isn’t helpful to imagine it is there when it isn’t as that diverts attention from what is useful to discuss. 

Maybe anger is the wrong word.  But we have all see these ginned up OP's that devolve into justifying anti LGBT behavior and the little innuendos that come out like 

8 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I work for the shadow minister for the prevention of domestic violence. Our government keeps very good records. Statistically, the person who is most likely to experience domestic or intimate-partner violence in our society is a male with a same-sex partner. No one else even comes close.

clearly implying that gay relationships  are violent.  And this is a guy that lives in a country that executes people who are gay. And that is the government that he wants to use the data from.  What would you call these types of posts that seem to always come up when discussing LGBT issues?  

I also rarely use the whole downvote thing as well, but I do pay attention to those posts that get a lot of downvotes and who is posting those downvotes.  It gives me a sense how deeply they feel about those posts.  And when someone gets a huge number of upvotes, that gives me a sense that there are a lot of people on this board who agree.  Evidently there are a lot on this board that feel a woman can feel less like a woman if a transperson uses that word and is something to worry about.  Evidently we should all be outraged that they. are allowed to use the word women.

I should just bow out of these threads and let you guys go at it.  For me it is too personal and I see the attacks coming from Church members. But as you know, I have major trust issues with the Church as well, so I read it as only reinforcement of my experiences with the Church.  Clearly this OP is designed to get people rilled up and fearful that their rights to push back against the LGBT community are threatened.  

Edited December 19, 2022 by california boy

[SteveO]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think that is exactly what "mansplaining" is. If a man is "mansplaining" to another man it's just called "splaining".  

 

Normally—normally— I’d agree with you.  But I figured I reach into the little chest of absurdities that people like Nehor like to think of as the woke’s weapon locker.  Next time I’ll remove half my brain so maybe I could wield it more effectively, but I think I did a pretty good job in the given situation.

I think maybe he was tapping into his white male privilege more than anything.  Maybe a dash of sexism?  And whatever apt description for the brain worms that posses an adult to compare a concerned woman about trans issues—to a wife beater.  Maybe too much time on Twitter?  Dunno.

 

[bluebell]

37 minutes ago, california boy said:

When violence seems to be understandable.  When people who are angry don't downvote those posts that find violence understandable.  When there is a tone in the post that suggests things that are completely unrelated like fake iPhones makes that anger against a certain population understandable. When the purpose of the OP seems designed to stir up that anger.

All of that is pretty subjective and based on your personal perceptions.  That would seem to mean that there actually is legitimate room to deny "that there seems to be a lot of anger about this issue".  At least as far as it pertains to the board.

For example, I rarely (maybe once since it's been an option) downvote posts.  And the absence or presence of my downvote hasn't yet had anything to do with my level of anger.  There probably are some posters who are angry about the topic, but it seems like most are about as angry with this topic as they are with the other topics they've discussed lately. 

At least, I can't really see much a difference in their posting styles or content.

 

 

[BlueDreams]

11 hours ago, Thinking said:

My son is gay and so my wife and I have asked him many questions about the LGBTQ+ world, and there are parts of it that I can't wrap my brain around. I'm not sure why it's okay to just identify as something that one biologically is not. For example, is there such a thing as transracial. Can I decide that I am no longer Caucasian and identify as some other race? It seems to me that doing such a thing would be offensive.

I could make an argument that would differentiate the two. Where race is more socially defined than gender is (the biological factors are far more loose), the social history that gave us races, particularly in the US, is also especially fraught and there is more baggage for the idea of changing racial identification because of it. Those who have "passed" for white in the past usually still had genetic heritage within the sub-category they're passing into. It was done largely to allow for a better life in a racial caste system that would have left them permanently disadvantaged for no fault of their own. It came with heavy costs, including distancing from the family of birth, lying to the families by marriage (spouces, children, etc), and cutting themselves off from significant parts of their heritage. The "passing" by white people for black now, doesn't usually have that same experience and when it's found out can come with some serious backlash because of all this and then some. (it has happened, particularly recently). I think this might continue to shift if/when our racialized baggage becomes less and less heavy. And as the boundaries around race become more blurred. But honestly, just because I can make the argument, doesn't mean I find the argument really strong.

Gender is assumed to be different. Though it's tied to biological sex it's more focusing on the social expression and roles around biological sex. So then the question becomes how does society define gender and how should it? Several trans/non-binary friendly expressions focus strongly on the more social/outward expression and individually intuited idea of gender. This is a view of gender that focuses on the amorphous experiences and roles that happen within the categories of "man" or "woman" in our largely binary system. It minimizes the experience of biology in defining these experiences....often by pointing to the exceptions: intersex people, women/men who struggle with infertility, parenthood in same sex couples v motherhood or fatherhood, etc.  Or pointing to cultural differences in expectations around gender roles. This creates either a big umbrella for "man"/"woman" where there are just different experiences within these broad terms (thus cis/trans labels before man or woman) or an assumption of gender spectrum instead of gender binary. Often both used for different points or expression of values or in response to differing critiques.

Personally I think this leaves one having the exception becoming the rule. it leads to things like "people with uteruses" as awkward phrases because the exception as a rule, is not well defined by biology....whereas the overwhelming majority more so have biology as an integral part of their gender experience. Ironically I think the spectrum idea would work better, and then giving valid names, pronouns, etc to the hazy middle grounds that recognize a different experience. similar to how a color wheel entails a variety of colors. But just because violet entails aspect of blue or red, it doesn't mean we have to change or expand what can be considered blue or red...we just name it and recognize that that means it carries aspects of both red and blue to some degree or another. 

But at the rate these discussions go, I doubt we're moving in that direction any time super soon. Where there can be both consistent parameters around man/woman with better recognition that there are legitimate variations that do not fully fit either general category. Not without it seeming like an attack or bigotry. And not while others really use it to justify attacks or bigotry.

 

With luv,

BD

[SteveO]

19 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

Personally I think this leaves one having the exception becoming the rule. it leads to things like "people with uteruses" as awkward phrases because the exception as a rule, is not well defined by biology....whereas the overwhelming majority more so have biology as an integral part of their gender experience. Ironically I think the spectrum idea would work better, and then giving valid names, pronouns, etc to the hazy middle grounds that recognize a different experience. similar to how a color wheel entails a variety of colors. But just because violet entails aspect of blue or red, it doesn't mean we have to change or expand what can be considered blue or red...we just name it and recognize that that means it carries aspects of both red and blue to some degree or another. 

Here, I’ll add some seriousness to my contributions for my very last post.  I actually agree with this.

In fact, if a trans woman or man came up to me at work and said they’d like to be identified by their preferred pronoun, I’d actually not have a problem doing so.  Shocker, I know.  I do dabble in empathy from time to time.

The other stuff is silliness and absurdities.  And at times bullying.  For example, I’m not going to jump through hoops for a 22 year old with a pierced septum who wants me to refer to them with the made up pronouns.  Much less the ones that insist their pronouns change every other day.  That is purely a “control” game that I refuse to play.  You’re unhappy, you’re confused, and you need some therapy.  I ain’t your guy to bring that baggage to.  

And I think the vast majority of people know this.  But because “tribalism,” and because nobody can give aid and support for the other side, they have to treat the absurd and the common sense approaches equally, and defend them equally—no matter the cost.

And that’s when you start losing people (mainly women I suspect) who would otherwise be totally standing arm and arm with you.

Anyways, that truly is it.  I’ll go disappear for another six months.

[HappyJackWagon]

23 minutes ago, SteveO said:

Here, I’ll add some seriousness to my contributions for my very last post.  I actually agree with this.

In fact, if a trans woman or man came up to me at work and said they’d like to be identified by their preferred pronoun, I’d actually not have a problem doing so.  Shocker, I know.  I do dabble in empathy from time to time.

The other stuff is silliness and absurdities.  And at times bullying.  For example, I’m not going to jump through hoops for a 22 year old with a pierced septum who wants me to refer to them with the made up pronouns.  Much less the ones that insist their pronouns change every other day.  That is purely a “control” game that I refuse to play.  You’re unhappy, you’re confused, and you need some therapy.  I ain’t your guy to bring that baggage to.  

And I think the vast majority of people know this.  But because “tribalism,” and because nobody can give aid and support for the other side, they have to treat the absurd and the common sense approaches equally, and defend them equally—no matter the cost.

And that’s when you start losing people (mainly women I suspect) who would otherwise be totally standing arm and arm with you.

Anyways, that truly is it.  I’ll go disappear for another six months.

I think this is how a lot of people feel about a lot of issues. It's a difference in view of what the government should impose, not even necessarily what our individual preference would be. As a compassionate, empathetic individual we might choose to be kind and call a person by the pronoun of their choosing even if itis outside of our personal preference. But if the government mandates the behavior that becomes a different issue altogether. 

I think we find this in all kinds of political issues (or issues that have been turned into political weapons) such as pronouns, masks, SSM, and even abortion. For example, an individual may be personally pro-life while also being pro-choice politically. I think a lot of people struggle to see this separation.

But it is interesting that someone like me would see the process of pronouns becoming an "issue" in a culture war as weaponization whereas someone on the opposite side could just as easily see the people demanding certain pronouns be used as weaponizing the issue. In any case, it would be great if we could all remember that differences in opinion don't make others the enemy.

[juliann]

On 12/18/2022 at 12:34 PM, The Nehor said:

I find that the people who complain the most about transgender pronouns almost never encounter people who would require them to deal with this massive inconvenience.

What I don’t understand is why there is so much outrage at a hypothetical inconvenience that most of those who complain about it never have to deal with.

As to fracturing in the LGBT community the four letters have never gotten along. It is amazing that it took this long to try to weaponize the divisions against the broader coalition. Some propagandists tried to drive a wedge to alienate the bisexual community by blaming them for HIV getting into the heterosexual population. Our enemies have done little to turn us against each other since then until recently..

Pretending that this is entirely an organic internal struggle is false. The TERF (trans exclusive radical feminist) movement was originally made up of people who were broadly leftist but opposed gender transition. Then they were largely bought out by dark money and the old guard were turned out. Now the TERF movement is openly allied and working with far-right anti-LGBT groups. They are a useful stooge to exaggerate dissension in the lgbt community. Basically another version of the Log Cabin Republicans everyone despises (including the party they support). The TERF movement trots out token lesbians and bisexual women to try to rip the coalition apart. In the UK the struggle is particularly tense. The saving grace for the lgbt community is that the younger community are much more united than the older generations and that even the older generations have learned that despite the annoyance all the other groups often are it is ‘stand together or hang apart’. This isn’t an internal fight. There are lots of real internal fights. This rift is largely manufactured to give people who don’t want to be seen as anti-LGB the ability to pretend that transphobia is compatible with that stance.

I find it particularly disgusting that this targets the most vulnerable and most exposed part of the lgbt movement to violence, persecution, and hatred. Spare me any “both sideism about how TERFs have been silenced. Social ridicule for saying things has always been a thing. The targets are those who often have to conform or hide to avoid facing attack.

Wow, I've followed a particular woman's group for years. They are the only ones fighting for women and that defines who they align with...not partisan politics. I deeply respect them and their sacrifices since the liberal women's groups abandoned women some time ago. You are really ignorant when it comes to women's groups. BTW, "terfs" are on the receiving end of violence not the giving end. Those who want to shut down women have burned down lesbian libraries, physically attacked women if they attempt to gather, and have successfully gone after their jobs. So be honest when it comes to blame. 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

And this is a guy that lives in a country that executes people who are gay.

Hamba has never shared where he lives so how would you know this, but from certain descriptions I think you are way off.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

It gives me a sense how deeply they feel about those posts.

I think you are jumping to conclusions.  I have never downvoted because I felt deeply about a post. Most of the times I was teasing or I thought someone was being silly. Not saying some people don’t, but just saying there is a lot of variety in how people use it.  I don’t like downvoting specifically because there is no explanation attached and I can see others getting the wrong idea on why it was done more often than not.

Edited December 19, 2022 by Calm

[LoudmouthMormon]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

For the record, I think that trans women should be upfront about who they are.  There are plenty of straight men that would love to date transgender women.  But that does not mean I am ok with understanding that violence may be the result.  Maybe it is just me.  I am not that into violence based on something I might not want to embrace myself.  A simple, this doesn't work for me seems to be ok with me.

Do you think disclosure is necessary before meaningful consent can be given?

From where I'm standing, it's absolutely a crucial part of consent.  And when not given, choosing to give the other party 'a surprise', that is a form of sexual assault.  And sexual assault is a form of violence.

[Calm]

Just now, LoudmouthMormon said:

Do you think disclosure is necessary before meaningful consent can be given?

From where I'm standing, it's absolutely a crucial part of consent.  And when not given, choosing to give the other party 'a surprise', that is a form of sexual assault.  And sexual assault is a form of violence.

Clarify by what you mean by “surprise” please.  If used too broadly, it comes across to me as trivializing “assault”.

[LoudmouthMormon]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

BTW, "terfs" are on the receiving end of violence not the giving end. 

I have personally received two death threats on social media, on two different occasions, by two different people, each one of them also called me a TERF.  In one instance, I had advanced the notion that genital preference is meaningful, and women who do not want a male organ involved in any romantic settings are not transphobes.   In the other instance, I was pointing out to someone who was refusing to use the Club Q shooter's preferred pronouns, that they were contradicting earlier statements that if you refuse to use preferred pronouns, you're a bootlicking nazi transphobe.

The 2nd death threat unnerved me a little, because I was arguing with someone from the same town of me.  I was worried they might try to make good on their threat.

I don't even know what a TERF is.

[LoudmouthMormon]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

Clarify by what you mean by “surprise” please.  If used too broadly, it comes across to me as trivializing “assault”.

Here is the example I gave of a "surprise", earlier in this thread:

Quote

Here's a story that I'm making up on the spot, but pieced together from numerous stories I've heard over time, from survivors of sexual violence:

"I didn't know I was a lesbian until after I was raped by my boyfriend.  After what he did to me, it took me 2 years to take my life back.  I'll probably always have to fight the symptoms of PTSD, but I'm mostly able to avoid my triggers these days.  It took another year before I felt brave and strong enough to try dating.  I met a woman at a party named Courtney and we clicked.  We dated for a few weeks, and I decided it was time.  I invited her to my place for some drinks. Things were going well, but when things started happening, Courtney surprised my by whipping out a male organ.  I froze, but he kept coming.  I finally got it together enough to kick him between the legs and force him to limp out of my apartment.  I thought I was done being betrayed by guys.  Now I'm back in therapy, can't sleep because the nightmares are back.  I thought I was a supporter of every letter in our acronym, but what this person did was just wrong."

I'm assuming you would not think such an example would be trivializing assault.  But half of the posts in this thread are surprising me, so I'll wait for you to respond. 

Edited December 19, 2022 by LoudmouthMormon

[Scott Lloyd]

On 12/18/2022 at 11:33 AM, provoman said:

Absent an appeal to an all present entity pronouns are 100% a social construct, and no one has the right or authority to define what "pronouns" are; such that someone could claim whatever they want. Someone could even claim y'all/all y'all as pronouns.

 

This might be an opportune place to reiterate that my preferred pronouns are your excellency/his excellency.  This is according to my own social construct, so please don’t quibble with me over whether my preferences are appropriate or deserved, or insult me for having expressed them. 

[bluebell]

11 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

I don't even know what a TERF is.

It stands for "trans exclusionary radical feminists".  It's often applied to women (whether they are a radical feminist or not) who believe in women's rights but don't necessarily/always support things that are seen as pro-transwomen. 

For example, JK Rowling was called a TERF because she called out a magazine for referring to "people who menstruate" instead of women who menstruate.  

[california boy]

44 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Do you think disclosure is necessary before meaningful consent can be given?

From where I'm standing, it's absolutely a crucial part of consent.  And when not given, choosing to give the other party 'a surprise', that is a form of sexual assault.  And sexual assault is a form of violence.

I don’t think I am really up for another thread on how we should fear those in the LGBT community.  You guys carry on.  It seems like an important subject to bring up on a regular basis 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Here is the example I gave of a "surprise", earlier in this thread:

I'm assuming you would not think such an example would be trivializing assault.  But half of the posts in this thread are surprising me, so I'll wait for you to respond. 

Anything that involves intentional physical touching or physically restricting/restraining the other in some fashion without first receiving consent qualifies as assault in my mind (though I am open to someone describing a situation I haven’t thought of right now that would change my mind).  But “surprise” could be just the mental realization that someone is not like they expected and have nothing to do with any physical interaction.  Deceiving even in criminal ways someone is best not described as “assault” imo, and I have unfortunately heard such terminology used in very trivial ways.  I have even heard it used to describe being startled in a casual, joke kind of way, but I have seen what has happened with “gaslighting” and “Nazi” and am doing my best to slow the tide on other words that are needed to retain their impact, their ability to repulse to show the immorality or even criminality of more extreme and dangerous offenses.  I am pretty open to fluidity in other word usage, but I think it best words used to describe significant injury be consistent in their usage and not turned into a more subjective descriptor.

I do not believe simply not informing someone one was transgender qualifies as assault.  What the person in your example did would have been assault if it was done by a cismale or cis female, just as it was with the trans woman.  It was the continuing to come at her that was the assault, not the fact the person was transgender.

It may not occurred to a transgender woman that the other has not realized she is transgendered and therefore she assumes consent is given when they went back to the apartment for drinks.  After all, they had been hanging out for a couple of weeks and the trans woman could assume that there were aspects of her transition that made it obvious she was a transwoman, but someone inexperienced would miss.  While it might have been traumatizing for whatever reason (people are not triggered only by rational reasons), it would not qualify as sexual or other assault if as soon as the transwoman realized the woman hasn’t known what to expect, she had stopped and asked what the other wanted to do and then done it (within reasonable limits).

But it is best not to make such assumptions, whether it is assuming if one gets past her door, a woman isn’t serious if she says no to sex or that the other is aware of less obvious characteristics and better to ask frequently in new situations if crossing a particular line at that time is okay.

Edited December 19, 2022 by Calm

[LoudmouthMormon]

23 minutes ago, bluebell said:

41 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

I don't even know what a TERF is.

It stands for "trans exclusionary radical feminists".  It's often applied to women (whether they are a radical feminist or not) who believe in women's rights but don't necessarily/always support things that are seen as pro-transwomen. 

For example, JK Rowling was called a TERF because she called out a magazine for referring to "people who menstruate" instead of women who menstruate.  

So, "radical" is basically anyone who doesn't necessarily/always support things that are seen as pro-trans?  Sounds a bit over the top to me.  Sounds like trying to silence dissent and suppress open conversation to me.  Sounds like schoolyard demonization and namecalling directed at anyone that doesn't agree with you, to me.

I don't think I'm radical.  There are so many definitions of 'feminist', I don't know if I am one or not. I suppose my thoughts of trans women competing with biological women in sports, might mean I'm at least partially 'trans exclusionary'.  But in general, folks dripping with hate and venom making death threats against someone arguing with them online, well, I'm not going to think too highly of them. 

Bluebell, your definition it helps me relax a little about the death threats I've received from people calling me a TERF.  I'm thinking such folks aren't serious/mature/capable enough to carry through on their threats.  Although you never know.  Maybe one of 'em has made it a point to find me and try to teach me a lesson.  If I suddenly stop posting here, maybe one of the anti-terf people got me.

[Thinking]

  

Thank you for your response BD. I always enjoy reading your posts.

4 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

Personally I think this leaves one having the exception becoming the rule. it leads to things like "people with uteruses" as awkward phrases because the exception as a rule, is not well defined by biology....whereas the overwhelming majority more so have biology as an integral part of their gender experience.

This is the part that troubles me. Some who have decided to be called by non-traditional pronouns also want others (or all) to be called by other pronouns as well. I've heard the phrase "birthing people" used to refer to biological women. My wife is a woman. I'm not going to identify her using some other phrase.

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, Thinking said:

I'm not going to identify her using some other phrase.

I assume you would though if she seriously asked you to, right (not as a joke that is quickly forgotten).

Edited December 19, 2022 by Calm

[pogi]

4 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

Ironically I think the spectrum idea would work better, and then giving valid names, pronouns, etc to the hazy middle grounds that recognize a different experience...

But at the rate these discussions go, I doubt we're moving in that direction any time super soon. Where there can be both consistent parameters around man/woman with better recognition that there are legitimate variations that do not fully fit either general category. Not without it seeming like an attack or bigotry. And not while others really use it to justify attacks or bigotry.

I agree that a more culturally recognized spectrum would be helpful.

In biology, there are recognized "legitimate variations that do not fit either category" of male or female.  These are intersex individuals.  Our religion and most of our culture don't know what to do with them.   This is an area where there is possibility for more cultural adaptability to what science already understands with biological markers that clearly indicate they are neither male or female as traditionally defined.   Trans people, however, are a different story.  Science doesn't even pretend to understand what is going on, nor could it provide any "consisted parameters" or objective measures of what it means to be in "the spectrum".   Because the experience of gender dysphoria and trans experience is entirely subjective, with no objective measures or parameters, and because our culture, religion, and society, only allow for "male" or "female" (those are the only options here at the health department), I believe that yielding to the subjective experience of others is the best road to take in the mean time.  Where society doesn't allow for a spectrum of experience, we kind of force them to pick one or the other.

 

[Thinking]

32 minutes ago, Calm said:

I assume you would though if she seriously asked you to, right (not as a joke that is quickly forgotten).

I assure you she wants to be identified as a woman, but yes I will call her by other preferred pronouns like sweetie, honey, or sexy.

[pogi]

Perhaps what would be most helpful is if people on both sides differentiate between and acknowledge that “trans” female/male is not the same as being biologically/genetically female/male.  It is something we all seem to agree about and already recognize, but we seem to be unwilling to differentiate between the two.

Medical and legal forms should include “trans male/female” as options.  This would eliminate a lot of problems and confusion for all.  There would be no confusion whatsoever what their birth sex is and that “he” or “she” in the trans-sense is not speaking of genetic/biologic sex.

 That way, one doesn’t have to feel like they are ignoring or being forced to deny the biological/genetic sex of a male by using the pronoun “her”.

It would also prevent a lot of the aforementioned confusion/heartache/anger in dating, etc.

It will not solve every debate surrounding sports and bathrooms etc, but it is a good start.  

 

Edited December 20, 2022 by pogi