Poll: Gender recognition offence

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

If you look like a man and dress like a man, the I'll probably refer to you as he.
If you look like a woman and dress like a woman, then I'll probably refer to you as she.
Should you inform me that you are transgendered, I'll apologize briefly and switch to he/she, whichever is correct.

On a sligthly related note, can we please stop with whole cis-gender thing?
I mean come on, do we really need a special designation for not being transgender?

What's the problem with the term cisgender? Trans and cis are considered opposites and cis is considered the closer, more common state. Like how Cisalpine Gaul was the near side of the alpines in Gaul, while Transalpine Gaul was the far side of the alpines. Considering that normal and abnormal are, as far as terms go is considered to be derogatory language, because of the innate nature of those terms being used to dehumanize and exclude people who don't "fit" arbitrary definitions... I think cisgender works quite well, it defines a difference between transgender and cisgender, with out being explicitly derogatory, or excluding. Yeah some people use cis as a means to vent anger at people who are cisgender, but then again trans folk are under a constant assault of exclusion, othering, dehumanization, and ridicule to say the least. When someone says "die cis scum" it's to vent frustration about unjustifiable discriminatory hatred aimed at trans folk. Really even in typical media, from news to comedy, we're either super weirdos, or a joke to be mocked and ridiculed. If you want the word cisgender to be positive, then the first step is to not treat trans folk like garbage.

 

[Fallow]

Just call them whatever you want to call them. If you feel that 'she' is appropriate, go with that. You have as much a right to define your surroundings as the other person. If that's not okay with her, you probably shouldn't hang out. If her demands are not okay with you, you probably shouldn't hang out.

Demanding that others twist and bend to suit her whimsy is downright moronic, and personally I would respond only with ridicule.

Hell, why not arrive twenty minutes late to work and demand that everyone set their watches 20 minutes back?

 

[Trippy Turtle]

I'll call them as I see them.
If they tell me what to call them, and I feel like keeping them happy is in my best interest, I'll call them that.

I will never understand why they think other people calling them he/her/it is a big deal. Sure, consider yourself whatever the hell gender, species, attack helicopter and sexuality you want. Don't expect me to care either way.

Being offended in general is a waste of time. Someone that identifies as a genderfluid attack helicopter is fine. Someone that identifies as such, and demands everyone recognize their special snowflake status or can't handle being criticized for being rather odd is not fine.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

Just call them whatever you want to call them. If you feel that 'she' is appropriate, go with that. You have as much a right to define your surroundings as the other person. If that's not okay with her, you probably shouldn't hang out. If her demands are not okay with you, you probably shouldn't hang out.

Demanding that others twist and bend to suit her whimsy is downright moronic, and personally I would respond only with ridicule.

Hell, why not arrive twenty minutes late to work and demand that everyone set their watches 20 minutes back?

Because one thing you highlight is objective truth, the other is personal subjective identification. In basic terms, using a pronoun for someone that makes that person happy is being polite. Refusing to make a literally tiny accommodation isn't about being right, it's about asserting correctness over someone else, also known as being a jerk. This is the same logic as saying gay people are confused. It's being a someone who refuses to accept others and is intolerant, because someone asked you to treat them as human beings with standards. Because if I misgender you to meet my standards, you'd be cool with it, right? Yeah, I think not, I bet you'd eventually pitch a fit over it. So why be so exclusionary to others? You think it's weird? Well the get over it, golden rule, you want to be respected, then respect others, pretty simple stuff. If your arbitrary line is pronouns, then guess what, if you misgender me, I'll misgender you back, I'll assault every inch of your gender identity, and I'll take every weakness you have and use it against you. Know why? Because you refused to use any human decency when referring to to me. Golden rule, you disrespect me, then I'll give you none, as demonstrated by you the level you deserve. Pretty simple.

I'll call them as I see them.
If they tell me what to call them, and I feel like keeping them happy is in my best interest, I'll call them that.

I will never understand why they think other people calling them he/her/it is a big deal. Sure, consider yourself whatever the hell gender, species, attack helicopter and sexuality you want. Don't expect me to care either way.

Being offended in general is a waste of time. Someone that identifies as a genderfluid attack helicopter is fine. Someone that identifies as such, and demands everyone recognize their special snowflake status or can't handle being criticized for being rather odd is not fine.

Except in this case a person wanted a reasonable state of being referred to without gender. You know what... What kind of insecure person are you when you have to criticize everyone who doesn't conform to the standards you know? Are you afraid of being misgendered, is it okay if I call you pronouns opposite your identity, is it okay if I label you homosexual when you're straight? No. So extent the courtesy to others. If you don't respect others for how they identify, then you've no place to complain when you get chronically referred to as the wrong gender and sexuality. Because I will bet money if someone wrongly labels you, you'll cry bloody murder. So don't mislabel others, because it's common freaking courtesy.

 

[MHR]

I responded directly to your quote.

Yes but she responded directly to your quote before it.
so let's break this down:

Whenever I'm speaking in pronouns, I'm concerned about the sex, not your arbitrarily redefined gender.

Meaning you're more concerned with someone's genitals, or/and sex defining chromosomes(XX-Female/XY-Male).

So MarsAtlas responded with:

So do you wait until you see somebody's genitals before you refer to them with any particular sort of pronouns?

A reasonable assumption considering the first post in the string.

You responded with:

I wait until I see them and decide whichever pronoun comes most naturally to my mind, and I don't worry about how common english parlance is going to make them crack and fall to pieces like sugar glass.

This says nothing about common English parlance, or even typical usage, but it does imply you wait to see genitals.

Which is how MarsAtlas also read it responding thusly:

Okay, so you don't refer to anybody using any sort of pronouns until you've seen their genitals then.

Which really does fallow the reading of the statements, you implied, intentionally, or not, that you wait until you see someone's genitals before you decide what gender pronoun to use. Again, regardless of what you meant, the way that conversation flowed did imply you need genital conformation to decide on what gender pronouns to use.

Now disregarding all of that silliness entirely and it was a silly exchange, mutual misunderstanding is fun, but we have a more important subject to broach. I highly doubt you'd instinctively refer to a butch woman, complete with short haircut and wearing mens clothes, as a man, provided you can still tell it's a woman. Likewise I doubt you'd refer to a person who's obviously male wearing women's jeans, a women's tee shirt, shoes, and has a feminine long haircut, as a woman. At least initially, so long as they still look like their birth gender. No reasonable person would fault you for this either.

Having said that, if either person were to ask you to refer to them as the opposite gender, it's polite to do so. This is because common usage of English does not ever override common human decency. Refusing to refer to someone by their preferred gender pronouns might be biologically correct, but it's far from polite. This isn't about feelings, any person you misgender, trans, gender-nonconforming, or such, will get over it. Still any person who you treat that way, they'll think of you as a complete jerk, not wrongfully so either. It's common decency, regardless of what you think, this is golden rule territory, if you want to be treated well, then you have to treat others as you wish to be treated. You don't have to agree with another person, or their life path, but that doesn't automatically give you the right to attempt invalidate their identity either. I hope you understand where I'm coming from here. This isn't about agreement, or disagreement, it's about being respectful. If you can't respect others for being different, when they're not intentionally hurting others, just being authentic to themselves, then you can't reasonably expect others to respect you either.

Right, which is why I tried to clarify with the edit earlier.

What I said before is untrue. If someone asked very nicely to use a different pronoun, I wouldn't use "piss off." Depending on my mood at the time based on whether or not this person took offense at my usage, I'd either oblige or squint, scowl, and say "I don't care" from behind gritted teeth. I wouldn't be one of those people that goes up to someone who passes and deliberately causes problems that no one else would.

The larger issue I take is the shaming-to-acceptance of things that aren't true, or the slippery slope they can represent. Ridiculous Things like Rachel Dolezal, that white woman identifying as black. It isn't like identifying as religious and having it be true just because they say so and truly believe it in their heart of hearts. Now of course, she's just one idiot misrepresenting the desires of many others, but failing to recognize reality as something other than what it is shouldn't be a new form of speech discrimination we have to avoid.

 

[JimB]

I think equal rights are great.

Being called by the pronouns and gendered nouns you identify yourself as is a right you as a cis person enjoy, MHR. I think if you refuse to treat trans people with the same courtesy, then your claim of supporting equal rights is dubious.

I hear stories that make it hard for me to get on board with this pronoun thing, like when someone says 'I'm a woman, but I identify as a man, yet I still dress like a woman and you have to use male pronouns' and it's like come on, you're not making this easy for us!

In that story, the person explicitly told you what pronouns he wants you to use. What specifically is so hard about that?

If you look like a woman and you snap at the sound of someone even considering that you are indeed a woman?

Politrukk, I think you are making the mistake of assuming everything going on in the trans person's life is about you. Live a lifetime of people calling you the wrong name, as well as a lifetime of a shrinking but aggressively assholish percentage of the population insisting that they have a greater right to tell you who you are than you have to declare who you are, and see if you don't get a little touchy about it.

Sucks that someone snaps at you for the bad day (or bad life) they've had up to this point, but my suggestion would be to be at least as tough as you want the trans person to be; to accept that they made a mistake and to forgive them for it.

They don't have a right to get mad at you for that.

Anyone has a right to feel anything they want to feel. You do not get to dictate the contents of someone's heart and mind to them, 9tailedflame.

The only thing that bothers me about they/them is that it also implies plurality.

Words do not have inherent meanings. They only mean what we as a culture agree to let them mean. It seems reasonably clear from context that no one in that instance could have heard you call that person "they" and think you were talking about multiple individuals, so what's the problem here?

If that person gets pissed off at me and says "Excuse my I'm a tri-gendered pyrofox," I will laugh and walk away and never speak to them again.

That will teach that imaginary person not to submit to your dominant right to decide what gender they are. Depriving them of your presence will be a pain they'll regret for the rest of their lives.

...so, uh, should I be offended people still call me young lady on occasion?

Up to you. I'm a bit confused by the question, honestly. Do you want to be offended, or are you asking if there's some overarching global authority that dictates what your emotional responses are required to be, or what?

Someone wants to be known as non-binary? No thanks, I'm not putting up with that.

Can you please explain what exactly us such a burden about referring to a person the way they ask you to refer to them? What specific effort does it cost you?

Do we really need a special designation for not being transgender?

Who's "we?" I don't see why there's anything wrong with having a word to describe a condition of being.

 

[fenrizz]

Do we really need a special designation for not being transgender?

Who's "we?" I don't see why there's anything wrong with having a word to describe a condition of being.

We as in the broader we, i.e. all of us.
And I don't see a reason that one needs a special designation for people that are not part of the 0.3% (rough estimate) transgendered individuals.

 

[Fallow]

Because one thing you highlight is objective truth, the other is personal subjective identification. In basic terms, using a pronoun for someone that makes that person happy is being polite. Refusing to make a literally tiny accommodation isn't about being right, it's about asserting correctness over someone else, also known as being a jerk.

Being polite, or being respectful, yes. Something which I do not owe anyone. I'll be polite within reason, I'll be respectful to those I feel deserve it. Greeting others by demanding they be referred to in a way contradictory to all appearances does not earn my respect. Claiming that the sun is green does not earn my respect. Anyone that wants me to call them 'he' should look like a man. It's up to them to make the effort, not demand everyone else change their perceptions of what a man looks like. That's how life works, and that's how we actually get somewhere in reality. Have you noticed how every famous singer actually has to release albums that sell? You know, actually earn the recognition?


Also, if it's but a tiny accommodation, why does it matter?

This is the same logic as saying gay people are confused. It's being a someone who refuses to accept others and is intolerant, because someone asked you to treat them as human beings with standards.

This has nothing to do with sexuality. Stop trying to shoehorn a black and white morality into this. I am all for tolerance. Acceptance is an anti-liberal sentiment which I do not agree with at all. My guess is that you feel the opposite way. (One cannot by definition accept what one tolerates and vice versa).

Also, gay people do not make any demands that they be recognised as the opposite sex, i.e. require that others change their perceptions. As for sexual attention from gays, I rather enjoy it. It's nice to be so openly desired for my body.

Because if I misgender you to meet my standards, you'd be cool with it, right? Yeah, I think not, I bet you'd eventually pitch a fit over it.

Damn right. I've been mis-many things over the years, but I feel confident enough in myself to not throw a tantrum. I know what I am, and it matters not what randoms think. If all you want to accomplish is to be insouciant, there are far better ways than to mis-gender someone. Furthermore, if someone keeps on being insufferable around me, I'll just stop hanging out with that person, a tactic that has worked really well for a lot of people throughout history. That way, everyone's rights to self-determination are respected.

So why be so exclusionary to others? You think it's weird? Well the get over it, golden rule, you want to be respected, then respect others, pretty simple stuff.

If I am exclusionary for not dropping my own perceptions (and rights to make up my own mind) when requested, I wonder what you'd think of me when I get called up by a phone-salesman at 10am.
Seriously though, there is so much entitlement here that I could fill a slightly larger than average Volkswagen.

Noone but me has the right to make demands of my feelings. I have every right to find anything and everything weird (here we have the acceptance vs tolerance argument again). I also care about respect from certain, specific people. I do not care in the slightest about the respect of randoms or edgy tumblrites. And, since I actually know how respect works, I earn that from the people I care about.
I do not demand any special concessions or privileges. Hell, I have both muslim and catholic friends (practising, not that community-only easy-mode) even though I think religion is an escape from thinking difficult and unpleasant thoughts. Not once have I demanded they relinquish their beliefs and supplant them with mine. Because, you know, that would be wrong and insulting in so many ways.

If your arbitrary line is pronouns, then guess what, if you misgender me, I'll misgender you back, I'll assault every inch of your gender identity, and I'll take every weakness you have and use it against you.

Or, you know, we could just keep it professional. You seem to think I would go out of my way to cause grief which is odd. You have a right to dislike people, or to not associate with people; that seems like a much easier (and healthier) way to deal with others. Last, my gender identity is pretty weakly defined, so have funsies with that.

Know why? Because you refused to use any human decency when referring to to me. Golden rule, you disrespect me, then I'll give you none, as demonstrated by you the level you deserve. Pretty simple.

I didn't know human decency was updated to include Tumblr pronouns.

Here's a golden rule for you: If you want to be considered a man by strangers - look like a man. If you want to be considered a woman by strangers - look like a woman. If you want others to respect your choices, ask them nicely, don't demand. Just like you have a right to be and to think and to express what you want, so do others.

 

[JimB]

We as in the broader we, i.e. all of us.

Then yes. The more accurately we can describe a thing, the better we can comprehend its nature, and comprehension is the only thing I can think of that I'd list as an absolute virtue.

I don't see a reason that one needs a special designation for people that are not part of the 0.3% (rough estimate) transgendered individuals.

Because the only other option is to describe cisgendered people as "normal," which implies being transgendered isn't normal. That's a bad misstep to make, because being transgendered is perfectly normal; it's a thing that happens to people all the time. There's no reason why we can't identify cisgendered people according to their own traits rather than by making inherently denigrating comparisons to people who aren't cisgendered.

Anyone that wants me to call them 'he' should look like a man. It's up to them to make the effort, not demand everyone else change their perceptions of what a man looks like.

You are not "everyone else," Fallow. You are only you. Further, I find it confusing that you would define a man by your perception, since that seems to imply a recognition that your definition is subjective; why then would you not acknowledge that subjectivity and use the term a person asks you to use? Is it just to be spiteful because you resent being asked to remember a pronoun that isn't effortless for you to remember?

I've been mis-many things over the years, but I feel confident enough in myself to not throw a tantrum.

I think there is a severe lack of either imagination or empathy here if you compare one person deliberately calling you by the wrong pronoun starting only now to the weight of an entire world calling you something that feels wrong, insisting and dictating you be something you feel you are not at a time when you lack the vocabulary and experience and maturity of intellect to articulate the wrongness of that feeling such that it feels like you're going insane because you know something you can't explain but everyone keeps telling you the thing you know but have never said aloud is wrong.

No one but me has the right to make demands of my feelings.

Your feelings are not at issue. How you behave toward the transgendered is. Your behavior extends beyond the borders of personal sovereignty and begins to affect others. As far as I'm concerned, you can think the transgendered as as weird as you want; I don't give two squirts until you act on your feelings.

Hell, I have both Muslim and Catholic friends (practising, not that community-only easy-mode) even though I think religion is an escape from thinking difficult and unpleasant thoughts. Not once have I demanded they relinquish their beliefs and supplant them with mine.

False equivalency. You are implicitly demanding that a transgendered person relinquish his identity to supplant with your own. Also, "I can't be transphobic because I have Muslim and Catholic friends whom I'm cool to" is a very weird argument to make.

 

[Knight Captain Kerr]

Well, a lot of these responses are upsetting. Not surprising, just upsetting to be reminded of how many people hold such shitty views. Do note, I have a hard time coming out for a variety of reasons and a big one is that people will treat me like half of you said you would treat me for daring to say I'm not just a man or a woman, something people have done for thousands of years and something I don't think should be that big of a deal.

Also demanding that a trans person has to present a certain way to earn your respect is bullshit. If a cis man has long hair and is clean shaven you wouldn't say he isn't a man. If a cis woman has short hair and wears gender neutral clothing you wouldn't say she isn't a woman. But evidently some of you will do this shit to trans people, that they aren't "making enough of an effort" apparently.

Really when you say things like I'll respect trans people if they "make an effort" in how they present themselves. I'll consider a trans woman to be a woman if she gets "The Surgery." I'll respect trans people if they identify as male or female and nothing else. Then just stop and be honest, you don't respect trans people.

 

[Fallow]

You are not "everyone else," Fallow. You are only you. Further, I find it confusing that you would define a man by your perception, since that seems to imply a recognition that your definition is subjective; why then would you not acknowledge that subjectivity and use the term a person asks you to use? Is it just to be spiteful because you resent being asked to remember a pronoun that isn't effortless for you to remember?

I do recognise that my perception of what constitutes a man is subjective, an answer that applies to almost every part you've written. I do not recognise that the definition is subjective, as it is a singular one we must all agree on. I do also throughout my entire response acknowledge the subjectivity of the matter. It is purely on the basis that someone demands of me that I accept someone else's subjective perception that I immediately refuse to do so. Note how acceptance/tolerance, respect, and finally validation (all descriptions that I broached) can all be used in lieu of demand without issue.

As to "everyone else" I don't think it a stretch that this demand would be placed on others too. So yes, "everyone else" follows logically.

Personally I am not capable of spite until I know the person better.

I think there is a severe lack of either imagination or empathy here if you compare one person deliberately calling you by the wrong pronoun starting only now to the weight of an entire world calling you something that feels wrong, insisting and dictating you be something you feel you are not at a time when you lack the vocabulary and experience and maturity of intellect to articulate the wrongness of that feeling such that it feels like you're going insane because you know something you can't explain but everyone keeps telling you the thing you know but have never said aloud is wrong.

I did not compare someone misgendering me to that, as it would seem rather ridiculous. I have other experiences that resonate strongly with what you say, but I have not the inclination to share them. However, the argument did not require such experiences, but merely pointing out that not everyone reacts the same or takes the same emotional path.

Your feelings are not at issue. How you behave toward the transgendered is. Your behavior extends beyond the borders of personal sovereignty and begins to affect others. As far as I'm concerned, you can think the transgendered as as weird as you want; I don't give two squirts until you act on your feelings.

Funny thing because if I would flip this around, word for word, it would be accurate. I have made no demands whatsoever. I simply refuse to go along with the demands placed on me in a theoretical scenario. And yes, my feelings are at issue, since it is exactly these that I'm being instructed to relinquish on the matter (i.e. my subjectivity should be replaced by someone else's).
Furthermore, you are now talking about all transgendered, which would only apply if all transgendered behaved exactly as in the theoretical scenario we are discussing. Why would you do that?

I do like the final sentence, it's very liberal.

False equivalency. You are implicitly demanding that a transgendered person relinquish his identity to supplant with your own. Also, "I can't be transphobic because I have Muslim and Catholic friends whom I'm cool to" is a very weird argument to make.

False equivalency? At least try to refute the arguments. You might as well be shouting "Mysogyny!" at a rally. Oh wait, you went with the equally sophistic "transphobia"... Grow up.

I am not 'implicitly' demanding anything at all. I am explicitly stating that a specific behaviour from a transgendered person is ridiculous. If you feel that my refusal to conform to someone else's demands is equal to me demanding that the person give up their identity, then we can talk about false equivalencies. The other person is free to use whichever subjective definition they want for themselves, I care not about it (kinda like what you said above with the squirting).

You clearly missed the mark on my last comment, but at least you read it.
I never made any argument that I can't be "transphobic". That's because I don't care in the slightest about defending against such ridiculous accusations and I find the term as it is used today merely an excuse to replace arguments and facts with feelings and social media outrage.

 

[Cycloptomese]

I'm a very busy person who simply cannot be bothered to accomodate the linguistic needs of every single special snowflake. I've got more important things to remember like taking the trash out, paying the bills, etc.

Also, as busy as I might be I'm always waiting to see genitals.

 

[elvor0]

Okay, I'm going to zip up my flame suit, pop some med-x and hurl myself headlong into the fire:

http://nonbinary.org/wiki/Xenogender

http://nonbinary.org/wiki/Genderfluid

This, is why I have difficulty with the subject. Loads of the stuff on those two pages is fucking insane I do /try/ to understand the plight of those struggling with their own sexuality and gender identity, I really, really try. I ask questions, I attempt to empathize, I try not to offend but sometimes I just...can't. A LOT of this stuff seemed to have popped up overnight. Asexuality(most of the time), Homosexuality and Bisexuality and Transgenderism are all easily definable in laymans terms and researched by science and actual psychologists. "I have no sex drive", "I fancy dudes" "I fancy dudes and women". "I feel like I should be the opposite sex". Bam, easy.


But even Asexuality having a spectrum hurts my head. It's not just that I don't have the information, it fundamentally breaks the prefix attached to it. Trying to understand that to me feels like being blind and having someone explain colour to me. A- as a suffix means 0, null and void. It's like having a spectrum of black, true black, as in the absence of any light. You cannot have a spectrum of zero light, because the second you add light it stops being black. I've tried to have the spectrum of asexuality explained to me any number of times and the definition changes every time. No one seems to be able to give me a straight answer. For something to be taken seriously, it needs to have an agreed on definition. Even newer ones like "Omnisexual" have easily defined answers "Well I'll fuck anything".

But sometimes it's just so obnoxiously pretentious that it boggles my mind, and really hits the notion that its an attempt to be special with surgical precision.

What for example am I supposed to make of gems such as:

Cosmicgender: "A gender so vast and complex that you are only able to process a small bit of it at a time. like viewing the night sky through a telescope you cannot hope to see all of it at once however you may gain more knowledge about parts of it the longer you focus on one part. may contain any number of sub genders within it that may present themselves to you. it is infinite in its possibility. Name from the vast reaches of space filled with things we canot begin to imagine."[21] (Coined by dragon-friker).

I mean yeah, it does what it says on the tin but seriously? The fuck does that actually mean, in the real world?

Abimegender: Having a gender which is profound, deep, and infinite. From "Old French - related to 'abyss'; from Latin a- 'without' byssos 'bottom'. Keywords: size, shape, space, synaesthesia

???? If you describe yourself as that, you are a fucking tosser. How does that even relate to gender? On any level?

Gendercosm: A gender identity encompassing and surpassing the limits of the earth/society, but doesn?t incorporate existing genders from society; a gender identity so grand and huge it cannot be explained by words. the opposite of gendervoid.

Can anyone expand on this one? That doesn't mean fucking anything. You've invented a thing that describes nothing, about something that doesn't exist and is unknown and has no definable boundaries. It voids itself! How can you identify with it if you yourself cannot even comprehend it in the first place?

Clearly a lot of these have just been made up by people wanting to feel special and it harms people who actually have /proper/ gender related problems. The xenogender page is just fucking awful. If that isn't a visual definition of the need to be a snowflake then I don't know what is. You cannot just make shit up and run with it. Other sexualities were observed and can be researched in large enough numbers that they have clearly definable parameters. With a lot of these, you aren't even a minority, you're not even small anomoly. You are totally unique. And that doesn't happen. Noone is the only one. EVER.

 

[MrFalconfly]

I don't see a reason that one needs a special designation for people that are not part of the 0.3% (rough estimate) transgendered individuals.

Because the only other option is to describe cisgendered people as "normal," which implies being transgendered isn't normal. That's a bad misstep to make, because being transgendered is perfectly normal; it's a thing that happens to people all the time. There's no reason why we can't identify cisgendered people according to their own traits rather than by making inherently denigrating comparisons to people who aren't cisgendered.

Well strictly speaking, trans people AREN'T normal.

They don't fall within the main bulk of the normal distribution curve (the boring 70% that makes up the population of our planet. You know, the people who wear dull clothes, and have dull hobbies, and are generally dull. Being "normal" just means you are dull).

However this is merely statistics, and doesn't in any way say anything about them as people.

EDIT:

I mean here are some example of what I mean about normalcy and dullness.

Spoiler: normal (dull)

Spoiler: not normal (exciting)

Or these.

Spoiler: normal (dull)

Spoiler: not normal (exciting)

 

[elvor0]

Okay, I'm going to zip up my flame suit, pop some med-x and hurl myself headlong into the fire:

whole lot of off topic

Does any of that relate to this thread though? I don't think we're talking about people who identify as bats, just the usual male-female thing.

Not really, OP was talking about non-binary genderism, not just male/female.

I find it difficult to understand how I should find out that someone who has the physical aspects of a woman Is gender fluid/non-binary.

Op is talking about extreme views/reactions on that matter. I'm addressing the extreme and my own struggles to understand the vast majority of that area. First bit is more sexuality which is /kind of/ off topic I'll admit, but it ties into my struggling getting my head round it and the two are inexorably linked.

You can stick to male/female, I'm just moving to different areas of the scope the OP is talking about, as I /personally/ find male/female quite acceptable and have had no problems in my admittedly few encounters with those that defined themselves as the opposite gender in a purely binary matter. People want to stick to just male/female discussion that's fine, but I feel the OP most definitely encompasses my post too.[/quote]

 

[Dr. Crawver]

Well I can't speak to most of this on account of the fact the internet has not come to an agreement of what most of these terms mean, but I can state that gender-fluidity is very much not a thing despite what some people may tell themselves. It's a physically impossible state of the mind remapping itself on a whim that if it was real would be tantamount to an extreme bipolar disorder that would make the person in question unable to properly think (or function in society) and would require near constant supervision to make sure they don't harm themselves in the same way schizophrenics do (having a psychology teacher who detests gender ideologies who make things up was a fun semester).

Basically someone claiming to be gender fluid is looking for attention. Outside of that as I said before I can't really comment on the matter since the people claiming to be "experts" (on the internet of course) haven't come to anything close to a consensus on what these terms even mean.

Yeah, pretty much what I'm thinking. Knowing you're born as the wrong gender is one thing. But being in a state where you're fine with it at one time, then not at another is just simply not right. The biggest problem with it is everyone doesn't know what it's like to be the other gender. I'm not even sure full post op trans people really do. So the idea that someone will know what it's like to just be both and swap between the two seemingly at will is impossible.

 

[MrFalconfly]

I don't see a reason that one needs a special designation for people that are not part of the 0.3% (rough estimate) transgendered individuals.

Because the only other option is to describe cisgendered people as "normal," which implies being transgendered isn't normal. That's a bad misstep to make, because being transgendered is perfectly normal; it's a thing that happens to people all the time. There's no reason why we can't identify cisgendered people according to their own traits rather than by making inherently denigrating comparisons to people who aren't cisgendered.

Well strictly speaking, trans people AREN'T normal.

They don't fall within the main bulk of the normal distribution curve (the boring 70% that makes up the population of our planet. You know, the people who wear dull clothes, and have dull hobbies, and are generally dull. Being "normal" just means you are dull).

However this is merely statistics, and doesn't in any way say anything about them as people.

Oh god, you understand what the "Normal" actually means, in all of its connotations. Take me now.

Hold your horses mate

I don't want you to waste money on a plane ticket from Canada to Denmark, just because I said something vaguely reasonable on an internet forum.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

If you look like a woman and you snap at the sound of someone even considering that you are indeed a woman? and then demanding respect afterwards? I don't get it.

It's called "people have bad days and aren't perfectly rational robots".

And everybody deserves a baseline level of respect.

 

[springheeljack]

Alright people,

We've had the entire tumblr/facebook/reddit/internet gender thing going for a while and people feel they should be accepted or have become more open about their newfangled gender roles.

Even if I were to accept a thing such as genderfluid-non binary-preffered pronouns they/them.
(something I recently encountered in a person)


I find it difficult to understand how I should find out that someone who has the physical aspects and aesthetic of a female (Breasts,bodily shape,wears makeup,dresses feminine)
Is gender fluid/non-binary.

Let alone accept that I should be shamed and hated for reffering to them as a "she".


Aside from that I would like to ask what you guys think of this so called they/them pronoun, to me that feels like a ridiculous way to refer to a singular person, could they not have chosen a better form for it?




Stuff like this absolutely drives me away from accepting these kind of people as normal.

Well first thing you should do is just treat them as normal people. And believe me they will let you know what they want to be called. Also you should be at least a little courteous and refer them by the pronouns that they wish to be used. If you dont want to do that for whatever reason just use their name

 

[JimB]

Before I begin, I must ask, does anyone know the proper procedure to report broken links in the quote notifications I've been receiving? Any assistance is appreciated.

It is purely on the basis that someone demands of me that I accept someone else's subjective perception that I immediately refuse to do so.

So...spite, then? I mean, I know you say you aren't capable of spite in this instance, but it sounds very much like your answer is that you refuse to call people what they want to be called just to piss them off.

I have other experiences that resonate strongly with what you say, but I have not the inclination to share them.

Not enough so that you will call someone with a vagina "he" if he asks for it, though? Okay.

EDIT: You know what? Never mind. I feel any further discussion is futile, and those two quotes are why.