Do you not understand that neither sex nor gender are "what Phoenixmgs reckons someone looks like"?
If DeSantis wins
- Thread starter CastletonSnob
- Start date
Sex and Gender Identity
There’s more to gender than sex assigned at birth. What's biological sex or assigned sex? What does Female, Male, and Intersex mean?
Gender identity is how you feel inside and how you express your gender through clothing, behavior, and personal appearance.
Yes. "Express" being the operative word, referring to the individual whose gender it is, not an external observer. It's not "how your clothing, behaviour, and personal appearance are interpreted by Phoenixmgs".Sex and Gender Identity
There’s more to gender than sex assigned at birth. What's biological sex or assigned sex? What does Female, Male, and Intersex mean?www.plannedparenthood.org
Gender identity is how you feel inside and how you express your gender through clothing, behavior, and personal appearance.
Much better than you, I suspect.
A liberal society should emphasise people's rights of free expression, including their gender identity. For the state to unnecessarily impose its own notions of individual people's identity against the will of those individuals is intolerant and illiberal. That it is being done for little reason other than to pander to bigotry is even worse.
And there's a general societal and cultural understanding of what men's and women's clothing and appearance is... You guys make this stuff way too complicated for what it is and this is why Florida has a bill that makes it against the law to force employees to take pointless training for this, they need to do the same for the DEI bullshit as well. These trainings are as dumb as say small talk training.
Nobody is forcing anyone's identity to be anything. If you are male or female, that's what you are, it's the same as if you're wearing a black shirt, you have on a black shirt. It's societal and cultural norms that "force" people to not fully express themselves, not the state.
...which is arbitrary, and varies from culture to culture and time to time and individual to individual. So if we were to go by your approach, the same person's gender would be different if they (say) went to another country, even if they never changed how they thought of themselves.
Fucking LOL! You're preaching for a method that's far, far, far more complicated and arbitrary than mine.
Mine is very simple. Ask them, it depends on their sense of self.
Yours, on the other hand, necessitates the possibility of gender existing externally from the individual, depending on who is looking at them. Meaning it can change constantly or have multiple genders at once, even if the individual just identifies one simple way.
Think about it. Let's say there's a cis guy (biologically of the male sex, and identifies as a man) who wears his hair long and sometimes looks effeminate. Two people meet him in a day: one recognises him as a man, and the other mistakes him for a woman based on these stereotypically feminine traits.
I'd say: his gender is male.
Your approach, however, means the person has a male gender when meeting one person and a female gender when meeting the other. Since you ignore sense of self and only care about the 'eye of the beholder'.
Fucking bananas.
The mooted Florida bill H599 gives free right to state employees to refer to trans people by their sex rather than their gender irrespective of what those trans people wish as individuals, and also prevents (on pain of disciplinary sanction) trans people from even saying that they would prefer to be referred to by their gender rather than their sex.
So, it's essentially a licence for obnoxious, bigoted twats to behave like obnoxious, bigoted twats in the workplace. It's illiberal and intolerant.
So, you say that you call trans people by their preferred gender, which is great. Why? I'm guessing it's because you don't think it's really right or fair to them, that you don't see the need to offend them unnecessarily. Well, that's not what Florida Republicans think, they think it's totally a-okay to make trans people feel like shit and are legislating to make it happen.
That's how everyone determines what to refer to people as, it's not even like a real thought process, it's just completely automatic. Pretty sure, just as automatic if I went to Spain or Japan, pretty easy to tell dudes and gals there too. The only question would be if whatever the language in another countriy has pronouns in a similar function as english. It's pretty funny that trying to say non-binary in spanish is still gonna be feminine or masculine. There's shared human culture and norms across different cultures vs just your culture as well.
You mean my way of doing it that is just completely automatic and nobody even thinks about is harder?
The bill doesn't say trans people can't say they prefer to be called something else. Like I said above, people use pronouns on auto-pilot. If a guy that looks like a straight-up guy is asking to be called she/her, I'm not going to be doing because auto-pilot. If they actually look and come off as a women, then I'd use she/her because, again, auto-pilot. There's a transwoman in a our board gaming group and never even had to think about what pronouns to use just like with anyone else.
The people who insist they can always 'just tell' are, without exception, wrong a lot of the time.
If your way of doing it ends up assigning people several genders that they never identified with, then yes, its obviously more arbitrary and complicated. And that's what your approach does.
I feel like you don't even actually understand what the Florida bill does, and you're just defending it as a kneejerk reaction because its from the Republicans and you have an odd deference to them.
Because your approach here would be explicitly against the Florida bill.
People have been right for thousands of years without issue. It hardly even comes into play unless you use like "sir" and "ma'am" a lot. The person isn't even the room when you say "she/he/her/him" most of the time.
The Dave Chappelle quote for this. I'm not calling anyone "they" unless there's a alien symbiotic entity attached like Venom for example.
No it wouldn't...
I pretty much only use they. They is for humans. Always has been. For thousands of years
Chappelle is spouting literal nonsense
For thousands of years sex-stereotypical behaviours were enforced under threat of violence, ostracism, or disownment, meaning people were incapable of varied self-expression without risk. That's why most people (unless they travelled to other cultures) wouldn't have issues with assuming gender. And that itself is a horrible fucking situation we don't want to regress back to.
So you've just made the usual mistake of thinking 'they' refers specifically to multiple people. Nope, it never did-- that's linguistic ignorance, just a newish misconception.
You want to call a transwoman 'she'. Based purely on appearance, but nonetheless, that's what you said. Florida Republicans are dead set against that.
Enforced by behaviors like dragging gay people to death behind pickup trucks. Do you not consider that an "issue"?
So what you're saying is about 5 centuries ago you'd be dying on the hill that "you" is not a singular pronoun?
Wow, you all love democracy until the majority doesn't agree with you. Go just about anywhere in America (even very blue counties) and no one gives a flying fuck about pronouns.
And since when did we call tomboys "he/him"? Girls/women have liked stuff that are normally masculine things and they were still referred to as "she/her", same thing for guys as well. I don't change my pronouns because someone has interests in things that are against the social constructs of their gender.
Where does it say that in the bill?
Pronouns caused gay people to be dragged to death behind pickup trucks? That's news to me.
That was the French's fault.
Don't be shy, post the full screenshot of the definition from your Google search. We're all capable of doing it, we can all see what it says.
But thanks for doing one of your most blatant attempts at manipulating "the facts" to suit you. Really helps it be super clear who and what you are.
Bonus points, 'people also ask':
"When did they become singular?"
1375.
Dude, nobody is arguing that someone's interests should decide their pronouns.
My point was that for centuries, in hundreds of cultures, people were unable to act in ways that were associated with the opposite sex. Women could not take traditionally 'male' jobs, or often even work at all. Boys or men wearing female clothes, or loving another man, would be subjected to disownment, violence, or murder. Women were overwhelmingly pressured to act feminine.
That's the reason you'd not be challenged on pronouns in the past. Because people were forced to act in accordance with behaviours associated with their biological sex, and even if they felt otherwise, they would be violently coerced to conform.
So you say it just want a problem in the past? That's why. It's not because it was just all fine and dandy.
Let's go to Oxford languages, shall we?
"With an antecedent referring to an individual generically or indefinitely (e.g. someone, a person, the student), used esp. so as to make a general reference to such an individual without specifying gender."
And... they have citations of 'they' as a singular dating to the 14th century.
You haven't actually even opened the thing in your browser, have you?
I was replying to...
So when was it that "they" doesn't refer to multiple people again? Because apparently it never did, yet that's the 1st definition of it. The 2nd definition that you're upset that I cut out is the NEW addition. My mom's got an old ass dictionary (that I used as a kid) and I can snap a picture of that entry for "they", you ain't gonna find the 2nd definition in that thing.
Same with Merrian Webster and it's the last entry.
Definition of THEY
those ones : those people, animals, or things; —used to refer to people in a general way or to a group of people who are not specified; —used with a singular indefinite pronoun antecedent… See the full definition
www.merriam-webster.com
Uhh...
Do tomboys not behave as boys? Yet nobody called them he/him.Silvanus said:
Again, uhh...
You said "they" never refers to just multiple people. Yet from the 1200s to 1375 it was only ever used as a plural. And it's still mainly used as a plural.
It only refers to a singular when the person is unknown basically. Like... I had a student that cheated and they kept denying it even though I caught them red-handed.
I read it a week or so back and still have the tab open. Copy/paste the part of the bill that says what you said it says. I have to do this with Mysterious all the time and I never get actual proof back from all the nonsensical twitter claims that never make any sense.
Singular they - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
"This use of singular they had emerged by the 14th century, about a century after the plural they. It has been commonly employed in everyday English ever since and has gained currency in official contexts. Singular they has been criticised since the mid-18th century by prescriptive commentators who consider it an error."
So the last 700 years, then.
Shakespeare was totally "woke", though. He had young boys dress up as women to act in his plays!Singular they - Wikipedia
"This use of singular they had emerged by the 14th century, about a century after the plural they. It has been commonly employed in everyday English ever since and has gained currency in official contexts. Singular they has been criticised since the mid-18th century by prescriptive commentators who consider it an error."
So the last 700 years, then.