If DeSantis wins

[TheMysteriousGX]

Florida Bill Would Make Accusations Of Transphobia Defamation With A $35K Penalty

A new bill in Florida would make accusations of Transphobia would be treated as defamation. The defendant could not "prove truth" by citing a plaintiff's "scientific or religious beliefs."

www.erininthemorning.com

If passed, $35,000 defamation suit if you claim somebody is transphobic or homophobic, *and* you can't use somebody's scientific or religious beliefs to prove it

Like, blatantly unconstitutional, but that might not actually matter

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Dictionaries rank their definitions by how commonly they come up in day to day life. That doesn't mean an earlier definition somehow trumps the definitions below or has more validity. They're all valid usages.

You insisted for ages that dictionaries only endorsed pronouns for physical sex. You were categorically wrong.

So then you're saying that what I said about how most people use pronouns is true? That you said definitely wasn't true.

You can't use both usages at the same time. If a male is saying their gender female, you can only use one definition of pronouns at one time so you have to choose 'he/him' or 'she/her', you can use both. Thus, you have to pick what definition to use. Again, for like the millionth time, your bullshit caveat of ascribing identity onto others is indeed bullshit.

 

[Silvanus]

So then you're saying that what I said about how most people use pronouns is true? That you said definitely wasn't true.

You've specifically stated that you don't simply use pronouns depending on sex. You base it on outward appearance, even when the sex and/or gender differ.

You can't use both usages at the same time. If a male is saying their gender female, you can only use one definition of pronouns at one time so you have to choose 'he/him' or 'she/her', you can use both. Thus, you have to pick what definition to use.

Complete irrelevance. You said sex-based pronouns were "literally the definition". OK-- by that standard, so are gender identity-based pronouns.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

You've specifically stated that you don't simply use pronouns depending on sex. You base it on outward appearance, even when the sex and/or gender differ.



Complete irrelevance. You said sex-based pronouns were "literally the definition". OK-- by that standard, so are gender identity-based pronouns.

I said most people don't give 2 shits about what people identify as, which is true.

And, again, for the millionth and 1st time, your bullshit caveat of people "ascribing identity onto others" for using pronouns based on sex is bullshit.

 

[Silvanus]

I said most people don't give 2 shits about what people identify as, which is true.

And, again, for the millionth and 1st time, your bullshit caveat of people "ascribing identity onto others" for using pronouns based on sex is bullshit.

...it's like neither of these paragraphs relate to the quotes you're supposedly responding to. Did you outsource this reply to a bot?

 

[Phoenixmgs]

...it's like neither of these paragraphs relate to the quotes you're supposedly responding to. Did you outsource this reply to a bot?

You don't stay on point.

And, again, for the millionth and 2nd time, your bullshit caveat of people "ascribing identity onto others" for using pronouns based on sex is bullshit.

 

[Silvanus]

You don't stay on point.

"No u"

Can I get an actual response to what I said? To recap: i pointed out that dictionaries list both sex-based and gender identity-based definitions. You then retorted that I was contradicting myself, because I had argued that dictionaries don't support your position. And I replied that that's still true-- because your own position is neither sex-based /nor/ gender identity-based.

...after which you just said "well noone cares about identification". Which is an irrelevant non-sequitur: you had been talking about dictionary definitions, then just promptly dropped it when that became inconvenient, as it turned out my approach is in the dictionary and yours isn't.

And, again, for the millionth and 2nd time, your bullshit caveat of people "ascribing identity onto others" for using pronouns based on sex is bullshit.

Restating an opinion for the millionth and 2nd time doesn't make it any more compelling. If you're telling other people what pronouns apply to them, then yeah, you're unavoidably making a judgement about their identity.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

"No u"

Can I get an actual response to what I said? To recap: i pointed out that dictionaries list both sex-based and gender identity-based definitions. You then retorted that I was contradicting myself, because I had argued that dictionaries don't support your position. And I replied that that's still true-- because your own position is neither sex-based /nor/ gender identity-based.

...after which you just said "well noone cares about identification". Which is an irrelevant non-sequitur: you had been talking about dictionary definitions, then just promptly dropped it when that became inconvenient, as it turned out my approach is in the dictionary and yours isn't.



Restating an opinion for the millionth and 2nd time doesn't make it any more compelling. If you're telling other people what pronouns apply to them, then yeah, you're unavoidably making a judgement about their identity.

I didn't say you were contradicting yourself, I said the definitions are contradictory (hence, you have to choose which one to go by). No one does care about identification (by polls and you said definitions are arranged by popularity), people will use the sex that they get the most physical identification cues of (because, again, no one is pulling down each other's pants or doing some biological testing before using pronouns). You can change enough things to where people will see you as more as the other sex. You keep saying you can change everything, which you can't.

Again, no you are not, if you're using the sex-based definition, it's not about what you identify as. You're acting like you're better and more right than others that use sex-based pronouns, and that's just bullshit.

 

[Silvanus]

I didn't say you were contradicting yourself

When you said this:

""So then you're saying that what I said about how most people use pronouns is true? That you said definitely wasn't true.""

That's clearly indicating you thought what I said before and what I said then were inconsistent.

I said the definitions are contradictory (hence, you have to choose which one to go by). No one does care about identification (by polls and you said definitions are arranged by popularity)

Not quite; I said common usage. But it's hardly objective. They're just grouped for reader's convenience, there's ultimately no significance to which comes first-- it doesn't lend a definition more validity than another.

people will use the sex that they get the most physical identification cues of (because, again, no one is pulling down each other's pants or doing some biological testing before using pronouns). You can change enough things to where people will see you as more as the other sex. You keep saying you can change everything, which you can't.

No, I've never once said you can change absolutely everything. I've said you can change the characteristics used to assign sex at birth, and you can change the characteristics that you personally use to assign pronouns.

Again, no you are not, if you're using the sex-based definition, it's not about what you identify as. You're acting like you're better and more right than others that use sex-based pronouns, and that's just bullshit.

I said 'identity', and you substituted 'what you identify as'. Does this mean you're saying those two concepts are interchangeable?

 

[Bedinsis]

Again, no you are not, if you're using the sex-based definition, it's not about what you identify as.

Two questions:
1. Do you?
2. Why?

You might have answered those questions already, but I have not kept up with the whole conversation, so sorry if I ask questions already answered.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

When you said this:

""So then you're saying that what I said about how most people use pronouns is true? That you said definitely wasn't true.""

That's clearly indicating you thought what I said before and what I said then were inconsistent.



Not quite; I said common usage. But it's hardly objective. They're just grouped for reader's convenience, there's ultimately no significance to which comes first-- it doesn't lend a definition more validity than another.



No, I've never once said you can change absolutely everything. I've said you can change the characteristics used to assign sex at birth, and you can change the characteristics that you personally use to assign pronouns.



I said 'identity', and you substituted 'what you identify as'. Does this mean you're saying those two concepts are interchangeable?

I'm pretty sure that's from you saying most people don't use pronouns based on sex and I said that's what the polls say and you kept denying that. I don't feel like going through the pages because, in essence, not really that important to me (either way).

There is a significance to the order (it's why all dictionaries have usually the same order as well). I'm not sure what it's based on but I don't think it's by just common usage either or else diet's definition would not have "it's what you eat" as the 1st definition if that was the case.

The latter isn't true, you can't change all physical aspects people use to identify sex.

If a person is not assigning identity to someone then how are they ascribing identity onto someone?

Two questions:
1. Do you?
2. Why?

You might have answered those questions already, but I have not kept up with the whole conversation, so sorry if I ask questions already answered.

Yeah, because that's how the majority of people use pronouns.

 

[Silvanus]

I'm pretty sure that's from you saying most people don't use pronouns based on sex and I said that's what the polls say and you kept denying that.

That's not what I said, though: I said most people don't use them like you use them. You don't just use them based on sex by your own admission.

There is a significance to the order (it's why all dictionaries have usually the same order as well). I'm not sure what it's based on but I don't think it's by just common usage either or else diet's definition would not have "it's what you eat" as the 1st definition if that was the case.

Uhrm... okay? So you don't even know or care to find out, cool, whatever. The fact is that one definition doesn't trump another just because its listed first. That's absurd.

The latter isn't true, you can't change all physical aspects people use to identify sex.

So, which characteristics are used to determine sex at birth? Almost always, external genitalia. Which are changeable.

And which characteristics do you, Phoenixmgs, use to assign pronouns to someone? Well, you said earlier that you go by the external appearance. So that would be body morphology. Which is changeable.

If a person is not assigning identity to someone then how are they ascribing identity onto someone?

Whether you use them to refer to sex or gender, pronouns express identity. Sex and gender are, after all, both aspects of one's identity. With me so far? And if you choose to ascribe it to someone else based on either one-- sex or gender-- you're making a choice about which one of those two will be used to identify them.[/QUOTE]

 

[Silvanus]

Two questions:
1. Do you?

Yeah, because that's how the majority of people use pronouns.

Quick note that although he says yes now, earlier in this same thread he said he goes by external appearance, including when the biological sex is different. He even gave a specific example. So this position has shifted.

 

[Gergar12]

Not that I am a supporter of Nikki Haley, but DeSantis is polling very low right now in NH, and IO. It's Nikki Haley who is winning. Granted if she wins, and Biden wins the primary no one will ever have the gall to call this election the most important in history ever, and I finally get an election where no one cares that I can not wait to not vote in.

And yes I know Nikki would try to cut SS, Medicaid, Medicare, and so forth

but cutting it and succeeding are two different things.

 

[Bedinsis]

Yeah, because that's how the majority of people use pronouns.

How do you use it in the presence of a transsexual?

 

[Phoenixmgs]

That's not what I said, though: I said most people don't use them like you use them. You don't just use them based on sex by your own admission.



Uhrm... okay? So you don't even know or care to find out, cool, whatever. The fact is that one definition doesn't trump another just because its listed first. That's absurd.



So, which characteristics are used to determine sex at birth? Almost always, external genitalia. Which are changeable.

And which characteristics do you, Phoenixmgs, use to assign pronouns to someone? Well, you said earlier that you go by the external appearance. So that would be body morphology. Which is changeable.



Whether you use them to refer to sex or gender, pronouns express identity. Sex and gender are, after all, both aspects of one's identity. With me so far? And if you choose to ascribe it to someone else based on either one-- sex or gender-- you're making a choice about which one of those two will be used to identify them.

[/QUOTE]
Also, the polls aren't gonna ask a question with nuance either. I feel most people use them like I do but there's no data on that.

The reason I said it doesn't really matter much or affect my point is because regardless of what is the main or most common definition (if arranged that way) is that you can't use both definitions at the same time. Both are valid so you do have to personally have one trump the other.

I've asked this as well so many times. What is your hangup with sex at birth? I've said so many times people don't care about sex at birth when using pronouns so it's pointless yet you keep bringing it up. You said "No, I've never once said you can change absolutely everything. I've said you can change the characteristics used to assign sex at birth, and you can change the characteristics that you personally use to assign pronouns." The latter isn't true (there's just so many characteristics), I couldn't care less about the former.

Ok... You can ascribe onto someone an identify that is unchangeable, it is what they are regardless of what you or they think.

Quick note that although he says yes now, earlier in this same thread he said he goes by external appearance, including when the biological sex is different. He even gave a specific example. So this position has shifted.

I said this is how people do pronouns a few times already. What Miss Piggy does here (in an exaggerate form) is what people do. You act like it's some complicated method.

How do you use it in the presence of a transsexual?

If the person had enough changed to look enough like the other sex, then use those pronouns.

 

[Bedinsis]

If the person had enough changed to look enough like the other sex, then use those pronouns.

And if you had used the pronoun you determined their sex to be, only for them to say: "actually, it's '[the pronoun you did not use]'" how would you react?

 

[Phoenixmgs]

And if you had used the pronoun you determined their sex to be, only for them to say: "actually, it's '[the pronoun you did not use]'" how would you react?

If a man went way out of his way to look like a woman, actual body physical changes and stuff like clothes and all that, and they still wanna be called a he/him, then that's on them trying to basically gaslight people.

 

[Silvanus]

Also, the polls aren't gonna ask a question with nuance either. I feel most people use them like I do but there's no data on that.

Indeed there's not. But I very much doubt you'd find many people who'd believe that if someone's sex and identified gender were both male, they should be given female pronouns of they happened to look feminine.

The reason I said it doesn't really matter much or affect my point is because regardless of what is the main or most common definition (if arranged that way) is that you can't use both definitions at the same time. Both are valid so you do have to personally have one trump the other.

OK. But to be clear: when you said sex-based pronouns were "literally the definition" and that's why you use them that way-- you're now acknowledging that gender identity-based pronouns are also "literally the definition"?

I've asked this as well so many times. What is your hangup with sex at birth?

And I've answered it so many times, yet each time you ignore the answer and then just ask again a few posts later.

You are the one who chose to equate the assigned sex at birth with someone's sex in general. You made that equation. So it's relevant to point out the flaws in it.

The latter isn't true (there's just so many characteristics), I couldn't care less about the former.

Really? What do you use to ascribe pronouns outside of body morphology? Are you running chromosomal tests?

Ok... You can ascribe onto someone an identify that is unchangeable, it is what they are regardless of what you or they think.

Then you'll still be making the judgement that their sex is more important as an aspect of identity than their gender.

If they feel that way, fine. If they don't and you're making that judgement for them, then you've overstepped and acted presumptuously and rudely.

 

[Silvanus]

If the person had enough changed to look enough like the other sex, then use those pronouns.

You've spent several pages insisting that we MUST choose sex OR gender-based pronouns as a rule, they contradict, we can't use both/either. You've insisted that repeatedly.

Then you acknowledge yet again that you're actually fine making exceptions to the 'sex-based' approach. Just so long as they're purely superficial reasons.

That about cover it?