The examples directly speak to how external perception, on matters of identity, can be utterly wrong.
Still no. You can use pronouns however you want. But don't go applying them to other people in direct contradiction of their identity-- that's imposing your interpretation on others.
Bollocks. Language is a human construct, and for every definition you can fish up that ties it to sex, others will connect it to gender or both, or neither.
Absolutely none of these things you're listing are inherently connected to sex, and they're all changeable. Yes, you're still just focusing on superficial cues-- the most simplistic and reductionist approach one can have.
Are either of your examples ways that people commonly distinguish between individuals? Do you have people frequently guessing what number your age is before associating you with others? Your age is part of your identity, people knowing your age may change the way you interact with others, people not knowing your age is not the same thing.
Age and orientation? Uhrm, yes, they both are.
Thank you for making my point for me. You're the one who wanted to consider that external perception definitive on matters of identity, not me, so perhaps you should ask yourself these questions.
Juuust like literary interpretation, ok.
You're in essence saying you can do that but you can't actually do that, thus you can't use pronouns the way you want...
I find it quite easy to use my own interpretation of pronouns to myself, without imposing it on others.
Sex is not. Pronouns are. Hence why other countries do just fine without gendered pronouns at all, or not connecting them inherently to sex.
Indeed. But you can change 1) all the ones used at birth to assign sex; and 2) all the appearance-based ones that you yourself use to assign pronouns.
Your system-- in which someone who was born male, has a biologically male body, and identities as a male, can still be assigned "she/her"-- is the most arbitrary and complex by far.
The likelihood is that the lion is male. Though I find it quite funny you'd use this example, since Lionesses can also sometimes have manes-- so if anything this is a perfect illustration of my point, that surface-level characteristics are not sufficient.
Same here, I have no problems using pronouns either. You can't impose sex onto someone because that's their sex. Also, should I ask an Asian person if it's OK calling them Asian or am I imposing a race onto them? So can you understand why someone calls a woman 'she' and understand they are at least as right as you are, and not force your pronoun interpretation onto them? Simple yes and no question.
You still don't understand what identity is. You haven't even presented a conceptualization of identity. You just sort of act like it is whatever you say it is, but never say what it is.
en.wikipedia.org
Well, let me guess: are you basing it purely on surface-level characteristics and stereotypes? Because if so, you probably shouldn't assume, because you could well be wrong.
My interpretation doesn't force anything onto anyone, because it values their own knowledge of their own identity more than that of uninformed outsiders. Simple answer: no.
This is just straightforward bollocks. We already have dozens and dozens of cultures without gendered pronouns. Rectangles exist regardless of human linguistic constructs. Pronouns do not.
You're the one who's insistent that sex at birth is the same thing as biological sex, not me.
Again, complete bollocks. Very few people will want to use "she" for someone who has the body of a man, was born a man, and identifies as a man. Yet that's what your inane system involves, since it's based solely on surface-level stereotypes.
Neither have you, of course: you're just acting as if your unworkable surface-level interpretation is absolute and inarguable, and then insisting everyone else doesn't understand.
Of course, this actually isn't the approach you've been taking, which solely values the observer's view and disregards the characteristics altogether.
How are racial characteristics stereotypes? Would you say that Rachel Dolezal could actually be black?
For starters, "race" is not an actual scientific or taxonomic classification. It's an informal grouping based on physical characteristics. And yes, many of them are stereotypes or simply not universal-- like the epicanthal fold, or a high melanin count. These things correlate with descent, but that's it-- they're not definitive of any meaningful scientific classification.
When you said 'at least as right as you are', you made a direct comparison with my approach. So it's relevant to point out that while you aim to impose your pronouns onto someone else, I do not-- I acknowledge that they know their own identity better than I do in this respect.
Sex does, yes, but you're talking about pronouns. Which are a human linguistic construct. When you say here that 'cultures can use pronouns based on whichever', you're directly contradicting your own earlier statement that pronouns by 'definition' refer to sex. Glad you've acknowledged now that they don't necessarily refer to sex.
Indeed-- just like you may weigh a baby at birth to determine its weight. Then the weight can be different when it's an adult.
You literally inarguably can. Birth at sex is usually assigned based on genital morphology, which can be reconstructed and changed in surgery. And your approach is based solely on appearance, which is clearly changeable, since you can have feminine-presenting men and masculine-presenting women.
Yes: Stereotypes are what you're using to determine which pronouns to apply to someone, regardless of their sex or gender.
Humans evolved based on where they lived, that's why Asians have narrow eyes and other races have dark skin (though I think technically light skin was the evolution).
This doesn't address the point. These characteristics are not definitive or absolute. So if you were to go around insisting that someone must be of a certain descent based on these superficial characteristics, you could well be wrong.
No, I don't think so. You'd be just as right if you applied your interpretation to yourself. But as soon as you start making assumptions about other people, and imposing the appearance-based snap judgements on people you don't know, the likelihood that you're flat wrong increases.
In our culture, at the present time, it very much depends on the individual. But there's no objective truth to this linguistic construct. And even you've admitted you're not basing it on sex, but rather on appearance.
That's right. Pronouns. Did you forget we were talking about pronouns?
Breasts and skin and hips (body morphology)-- so more changeable characteristics.
So you're saying two Asians may have a kid without narrow eyes? Or saying if I see someone with narrow eyes, they might not be Asian?
So, what you're referring to is the "monolid" eye-shape, which gives the appearance of a narrower eye. Its usually theorised to be an adaptation people developed to lower exposure, particularly from cold. Its common in people of Asian descent-- but is also fairly often seen among native Northern Americans and Siberian groups. So yes, they may well not be Asian. Or they may have Asian descent down the line, but be American or British or whatever else.
But it's not. Most people would agree that if someone has a biologically male body and identifies as a male as well, then there's no good reason to be referring to them as she/her. Yet you're insisting that appearance is all there is to it.
You can claim you represent the majority all you like, but it's just bloviating.
To you. Not to me, not to others, and not to dozens of other cultures, both modern and historic.
Ahh, the old insulting prejudice comes out again.
Do you really not get this yet: you don't know what the concept of identity actually is. The shape of the tree is not the analogy for identity, the shadow is. Your identity isn't your self-image, it's not a list of your traits, it is the things that distinguish you from or associate you with others. Distinguishing and associating are things that happen based on projection and perception, identity is based in those things, it is not just "what exists".
Northern Americans are of Asian descent and Siberia is in Asia. Even among "white" races there are unique physical traits, not as super noticeable as the differences between like white or Asian or black obviously, but still there.
We literally invent ourselves as part of the process of becoming a self-aware being.