(January 29, 2019 at 8:40 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: What if a person was unwilling to extend the basic considerations that society affords them to others, and replaced that consideration with intentional insulting, offensive and derogatory comments instead?  Well, then they would be engaging in an act of social violence and verbal assault.

. . . even if you didn't think their particular identity or demographic required such consideration? You'd say that, whenever someone requests special semantic or linguistic consideration due to the sensitivities they have about their identity, you'd conform to their request to address them / not address them in a way they didn't like? You sure about that?

---

(January 29, 2019 at 8:40 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote:

Quote:What if, rather than calling a particular trans individual "she," I want to call that person a "crazy piece of shit, who's gaming a new female identity role just to get extra attention?"

You're asking me "what if" people were pointless and blatant assholes.

What if I told you that I'm talking about Caitlyn Jenner, that I consider Caitlyn Jenner a fucking murderous piece of shit and a horror of a human being, and that I think Caitlyn Jenner is using the trans issue both to bury murder and to get special attention? Am I still being a pointless and blatant asshole?

Do you really need to ask? I'm guessing that you know the answer to that question, and are comfortable with it.

(January 29, 2019 at 9:09 pm)bennyboy Wrote: whenever someone requests special semantic or linguistic consideration due to the sensitivities they have about their identity,

Your being referred to as mister instead of miss is an example of this.  Just to get the convo back on track and away from baiting.

(January 29, 2019 at 10:09 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: Do you really need to ask?  I'm guessing that you know the answer to that question, and are comfortable with it.

(January 29, 2019 at 9:09 pm)bennyboy Wrote: whenever someone requests special semantic or linguistic consideration due to the sensitivities they have about their identity,

Your being referred to as mister instead of miss is an example of this.  Just to get the convo back on track and away from baiting.

Why, I do declare. . . how could you even entertain such a notion? *gasp*

There's a strange trend happening on this thread lately where theists seem to be pushing a very pro-trans agenda. It's almost as if they're doing so rhetorically in order to prove some strange point. Eh, paint me suspicious I guess; it's just weird.

I've always supported trans rights in the sense that I don't believe people should be treated any difference simply because of their sexual orientation or feelings about their gender/sex; it's just none of my business. People are people and so long as you respect me and my rights, I'll respect you and yours. Disrespect me and it's a different story; I will no longer go to any lengths to show you any kind of respect or consideration.

However, I'm oddly suspicious that there's some sort of "gotcha" moment that they're looking for here and unfortunately for them I don't think they're going to find it.

PRJ,
I haven't reviewed the entire thread, but I believe I am the only theist that has commented on it, and stated it. Does it bother you that I want to be sensitive to cultural issues in society or want to learn more about thinkgs that I have no perspective or information on?

I simply don't believe that gender is more than bimodal, and that in common practice with the overwhelming majority typically assumed as binary. People claim that gender is non-binary and I can see where they might have a definition of male/female that doesn't match mine. That doesn't rise to the effect to need societal restructuring to accomidate outliers, IMO.

The only thing I'm pushing is:
a. people being more understanding of someone else's opinion.
b. learning more about things you don't understand
c. a better plurality of opinions by protecting rights of people, regardless of their personal definitions of their gender identity.

If you're looking for a gotcha, sorry I'm all out. If you have anything to add that would convince me it's not the way I perceive it then please extrapolate.

Male and female are sex, tack, not gender.  I guess I'll end up saying this over and over, but when people are discussing the gender construct and non conformity, they are not making a comment on the presence or absence of penis.

It is the noted and historic trend of shittiness that necessitates societal restructuring to accommodate outliers to our construct, I thought that we were in agreement here? No one even needs to convince you that your position on the issue is false or uninformed to establish that, right?

(January 30, 2019 at 12:46 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: Male and female are sex, tack, not gender.  I guess I'll end up saying this over and over, but when people are discussing the gender construct and non conformity, they are not making a comment on the presence or absence of penis.

It is the noted and historic trend of shittiness that necessitates societal restructuring to accommodate outliers to our construct, I thought that we were in agreement here?  No one even needs to convince you that your position on the issue is false or uninformed to establish that, right?

Okay, let's take the Navajo genders that popped up when I googled the modern meaning of "gender": "In the case of the Navajo, there were four genders: man, woman, masculine female-bodied nádleeh, and feminine male-bodied nádleeh. Intercourse between two people of different genders, regardless of biological sex, was not stigmatized." (from wikipedia)

In a "masculine female-bodied nádleeh," then what would "masculine" refer to?  It still refers to "manlike."  All these various gender expressions, so far as I can tell, are still expressions of the psychological or behavioral norms associated with human-with-penis and human-with-vagina.

My current perspective is this: gender is binary, gender identity and expression may not be.

Anyway, I want to take a break and consider the philosophical import of Aerosmith:





I'm curious-- would those with an interest in gender identity say that rock musicians with long hair (and sometimes makeup), and which included me when I had long silky locks, were playing with gender identity a little?  Or were we just tapping a more primal masculinity where long-hair is a glorious mane and should be marveled at by admiring bitches and jealous competitors alike?  And then, or course, there was Robert Plant:





If you had to guess, where in the multi-axial rainbow would Robert Plant find a home?

People certainly seemed to think they were at the time.  I;m sure that you can remember comments like that from the rock hatin previous generation that told you to cut your hair and dress like a man, you girly bum. 

(January 30, 2019 at 3:47 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: People certainly seemed to think they were at the time.  I;m sure that you can remember comments like that from the rock hatin previous generation that told you to cut your hair and dress like a man, you girly bum. 

My memory is that the jocks were constantly calling the long-haired guys faggots all the time, and that the long-haired guys were pretty regularly banging the jocks' girlfriends in the backs of old-model Chevy Impalas with Metallica blasting.  I'd say that was a pretty fair exchange.

I got especially teased because I took cooking and typing electives instead of shop classes.  They'd make jokes about my tampon dropping out or whatever.  That was until those fucking dumbasses saw me hanging around all the time with girls. . . eating my delicious mac 'n' cheese that I'd learned how to cook, and their girlfriends running their fingers through my hair and saying how silky and awesome it was.

*disclaimer I'm skipping the part where I got beat up pretty regularly, and where about 1/2 the girls in those classes were pretty sure I was gay*

Of course, once I ended up on the streets and made my glorious comeback a couple years later as a confirmed criminal, my rep from all fronts improved pretty dramatically. The principal asked in front of maybe twenty students to see what was inner lining of my Levi's jean jacket (we used to slash a hole in it, so basically the whole jacket was a giant pocket for contraband). He was looking for a gun, but he pulled out a mickey of Lamb's navy, a package of rolling papers, and a clipped-out photo from a Playboy magazine that I'd thought I'd lost. It was only through incredible social incompetence and a constant obsession with computer programming and nothing else that I managed not to get laid every day after that.

Aw, memories.  *sniff*

(January 29, 2019 at 11:14 am)tackattack Wrote: ...
OK so to regurgitate what I've learned:

1. Sex- is gonadal and binary Male female
2. Gender Identity- Male or Female (might develop later and be different than gonads) is bimodal and highly subjective and personal
3. Gender expression - What you present yourself as -IDC
4. sexual attraction - IDC
...

I feel a little misquoted so just as a reminder (an unlearn / relearn opportunity):
1. Gonadal/chromosomal... bimodal, not binary.
2. Hormonal... not subjective, it’s quantifiably measurable. Yes, bimodal.
3. Qualitative
4. Qualitative.

Cheers
DLJ