Poll: Gender recognition offence

[F-I-D-O]

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

My only issue with the They/They're "pronouns" is plurals.
I don't like saying "They are doing xyz" if it's one person.
And "They is doing xyz" just feels dirty in a purely grammatical manner.

I really don't get this complaint. We already use 'they' as a non-gendered singular pronoun in circumstances where the relevant gender is unknown. For example:

"The thief crept past three guard rotations to steal that ruby. Whoever they are, they're good."

'It' isn't right in this context, since 'it' is generally used to refer to objects, not people. 'He/She' wouldn't work either, since whichever you use, you're assuming a gender for this hypothetical thief of unknown gender. So we use a singular 'they' here, in this context. Or does that example sentence also feel uncomfortable to you?

And if 'they' doesn't feel uncomfortable in my above example, why does it feel uncomfortable to use 'they' as a singular pronoun for someone who wants to be identified as 'they'?

That example only has one acting person, so they has a clear connotation. Yes, it works, but the sentence is structured in such a way to avoid confusion from an unclear pronoun. That type of usage doesn't feel uncomfortable to me.
What does is when I mentally slip and say things like "They is" when I am explicitly referring to one person. My brain says one person - use is. Also, use the right pronoun - they. And then I slip up. As someone with difficulty speaking, it doesn't help. It's purely a mental block on my end, and I understand that. However, the topic was again asking about personal feelings on the matter.

Other example:
"Jim and Susie were talking. Then they went back to their room."
Who am I referring to?
With multiple acting parties, they becomes an unclear pronoun reference.
A clarification might be "Then Jim went back to their room" which still works and is technically correct, but is unclear if its proper pronoun usage or an error. It stands out more in writing, as it can be glossed over in speech.

As such, I rarely use "they" when referring to a singular person (more so with companies).
And as I've stated before, I don't go around "correcting" people's pronouns. If someone wants to be referred to with the "they" set, I'll do that. However, knowing that I have a tendency to mess that up at some point and getting pronouns wrong around someone you know can be incredibly rude, I make more of a conscious effort to use names. I've never heard of anyone complaining because I used their name too much.
I have a friend who uses "it" as the preferred pronoun. I tend to avoid referring to that pronoun around people who don't know, as someone not aware of its identity could view that usage as insulting. So I use names, because it just makes social events less awkward, and maintains clarity while respecting the person's decision.

(Edited for slight clarifications)

 

[Something Amyss]

With multiple acting parties, they becomes an unclear pronoun reference.

The same is true if it's Adam and Steve. "he then went back to his room" could mean either of them (Though admittedly, not both). Nobody seems to rail against this.

 

[F-I-D-O]

With multiple acting parties, they becomes an unclear pronoun reference.

The same is true if it's Adam and Steve. "he then went back to his room" could mean either of them (Though admittedly, not both). Nobody seems to rail against this.

I know I'm being contrarian here, but I actually do find that just as frustrating, and would immediately ask "Who?". I don't like unclear pronoun references regardless of implied gender, I was just focusing on "they" because I was trying to clarify my position.

Side story time: I had an English teacher for two years who read papers using what he called "the dumb grader." If there was any point where the pronouns or other forms of references/agreements were not EXPLICITLY clear he'd write "vague" on the paper and dock points. He'd do this regardless of context, as the singular sentence in question was vague. Because of that system, he also had a whole discussion on why people shouldn't just use "they" as the only pronoun when trying to refer to non-gendered actions, as it was unclear between one or more people. In his words, writing that only used they as a stand-in was dry and boring. Adding even a little characterization with names or more definite (for lack of a better word) pronouns made vague situations more concrete (at least with number). He pushed clarity over all else. He did admit that completely removing the usage of "they" for a singular non-gender defined person leaves no good replacement. As stated before, "it" has connotations that don't work unless you're writing about eldritch sample users.

 

[runic knight]

I think the op would be better served to reword their question, as it obviously has invited a lot of attack on their character for the way they worded the question. They deserved it though, they were totally asking for people to attack them as a person. /sarcasm

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

When he makes statements like that, suggesting how one person upsetting him is going to change how he acts towards a bunch of other people who have nothing to do with it, he rightly deserves to be called on it.

"Someone was mean to me so I'm not accepting any of those people!" is a rather awful stance. It suggests he thinks how they deserve to be treated depends completely on his personal feelings.

That is a fair point on the basis of it being illogical. Still, I think the topic would be far better served reworded instead of resulting in an inquisition of his personal views while largely ignoring it. Less political grandstanding, less attempts to shame and attack character, and ultimately, less bullshit to dig through distracting from the original question itself.

 

[Akjosch]

The poll doesn't seem any connection to the thread.

The poll is talking about someone's sex. If someone has the physical characteristics of a certain sex (as evidenced by their DNA and hormone levels, for example), it's obviously not wrong to call them being an example of that sex.

The thing is, you generally don't even have this information, and I personally couldn't care less for it unless I'm trying to produce offspring with that specific person (which for any random person you can safely assume I don't).

Then the OP continues to talk about gender instead ...

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

I think the op would be better served to reword their question, as it obviously has invited a lot of attack on their character for the way they worded the question. They deserved it though, they were totally asking for people to attack them as a person. /sarcasm

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

When he makes statements like that, suggesting how one person upsetting him is going to change how he acts towards a bunch of other people who have nothing to do with it, he rightly deserves to be called on it.

"Someone was mean to me so I'm not accepting any of those people!" is a rather awful stance. It suggests he thinks how they deserve to be treated depends completely on his personal feelings.

That is a fair point on the basis of it being illogical. Still, I think the topic would be far better served reworded instead of resulting in an inquisition of his personal views while largely ignoring it. Less political grandstanding, less attempts to shame and attack character, and ultimately, less bullshit to dig through distracting from the original question itself.

Well the statement kind of colors perceptions of the original scenario presented, at least for me. And his reaction to it.

I don't think the question itself is particularly interesting anyways. I haven't seen any hint at an opinion that contradicts the simple "Nothing wrong, just correct it after." Except for some that get more political and veer from that topic into whether preferred pronouns should even be respected at all. If it weren't for the other elements I expect the topic would be mostly ignored. But the OP chose to make it broader than just that by what he chose to say in his post.

 

[JimB]

Oh hey, they fixed the links in quote alert mails. Neat.

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

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

Because science doesn't support the idea of non-binary genders.

You are flatly wrong here, because you are treating the words "gender" and "sex" as if they're synonymous. They're not. In the fields we're talking about, "sex" is the term used to describe physical, reproductive characteristics, whereas "gender" refers to social constructs (so, for example, if you're talking about a woman having a vagina, you're talking about her sex, but if you're talking about the expectations placed upon her appearance, you're talking about gender). As a social construct, there is literally nothing stopping anyone from inventing as many genders as they want. Science has nothing to do with it, because science does not dictate; it only describes what it observes.

Plus (and this is somewhat debatable), it's possible non-binaryism and transgenderism are just mis-identified mental illnesses, and as long as that possibility exists, I don't want to possibly be complicit in enabling someone's mental illness.

That's a cop-out. If you are the man of science you claim to be, then you know one hundred percent certainty is effectively impossible, because the most a scientist can say is, "I have not yet seen the case that contradicts our belief, but it may yet exist;" meaning the possibility you demand be eliminated never can. Frankly, I think your application of the principle is hypocritical, because your denouncement of creationism could be responded to with exactly the same sentiment--"It's possible you don't know something that proves God made the universe in seven days, so as long as that possibility exists, I don't want to be complicit in enabling scientific propaganda"--so I think if you want to be considered honest, then the burden is on you to prove transgenderism is a disease by identifying its psychopathology or finding peer-reviewed and generally accepted studies that do so for you.

 

[Something Amyss]

I know I'm being contrarian here, but I actually do find that just as frustrating, and would immediately ask "Who?".

Then you seem to have solved this problem quite well, and as a bonus would be excellent at CinemaSins.

*ding*

 

[happyninja42]

With multiple acting parties, they becomes an unclear pronoun reference.

The same is true if it's Adam and Steve. "he then went back to his room" could mean either of them (Though admittedly, not both). Nobody seems to rail against this.

Ugh, Adam and Steve. I hate that phrase. xD I know you're using it for example purposes, but considering how many times I've actually heard some bible thumper around here use that phrase to promote some anti-gay agenda just really chaps my ass. "It says Adam and EVE, not Adam and Steve!" and then they act like they can do a mic drop moment and win the argument. Makes me want to suplex them off the ropes.

 

[Lightknight]

Ok, sure, they have the right to be mad, but you have no way of knowing someone's gender identity just by looking at them, so guessing wrong isn't something you can be blamed for. You didn't actually do anything wrong, and as such, you don't deserve to be yelled at or anything.

If they aren't presenting then no, they don't have a right to be mad. It's simple math. If they aren't presenting as the gender they identify with then the only alternatives are that they're either presenting as their sex or presenting neutral. The gender norms are to be assumed unless indicated otherwise as to avoid offending cis people as well whose feelings and desires to be seen as what they identify as are just as valuable.

With multiple acting parties, they becomes an unclear pronoun reference.

The same is true if it's Adam and Steve. "he then went back to his room" could mean either of them (Though admittedly, not both). Nobody seems to rail against this.

This is just an issue of ambiguous pronouns. It's improper English in these circumstances anyways. Were it Adam and Evette then no one would give a shit and proper English would have been employed.

 

[Something Amyss]

Ugh, Adam and Steve. I hate that phrase. xD I know you're using it for example purposes, but considering how many times I've actually heard some bible thumper around here use that phrase to promote some anti-gay agenda just really chaps my ass. "It says Adam and EVE, not Adam and Steve!" and then they act like they can do a mic drop moment and win the argument. Makes me want to suplex them off the ropes.

Yes, but that's exactly why it came to mind. XD

 

[happyninja42]

Ugh, Adam and Steve. I hate that phrase. xD I know you're using it for example purposes, but considering how many times I've actually heard some bible thumper around here use that phrase to promote some anti-gay agenda just really chaps my ass. "It says Adam and EVE, not Adam and Steve!" and then they act like they can do a mic drop moment and win the argument. Makes me want to suplex them off the ropes.

Yes, but that's exactly why it came to mind. XD

Oh I know, it's just, if I have anything close to a "trigger" it's hearing shit like that. Living here in the bible belt of the South in the US, where there are 2 churches on every city block (if not more), I've heard it a lot. Listening to them piece together disparate passages into this frankenstein's monster hybrid of a complete thought to back up their batshit crazy theory. Just, bleh.

Eh, sorry, derailing thread, I'll stop.

 

[crazygameguy4ever]

if you were born a guy i'll call you a guy .. if your were born a girl i'll call you a girl. .. regardless of what you look like now..

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

if you were born a guy i'll call you a guy .. if your were born a girl i'll call you a girl. .. regardless of what you look like now..

So you check birth certificates before you gender people? Not damn likely. That whole statement sounds pretty much like a declaration of transpobia to me.

If they aren't presenting then no, they don't have a right to be mad. It's simple math. If they aren't presenting as the gender they identify with then the only alternatives are that they're either presenting as their sex or presenting neutral. The gender norms are to be assumed unless indicated otherwise as to avoid offending cis people as well whose feelings and desires to be seen as what they identify as are just as valuable.

So you refer to cisgender men who are feminine as women and cisgender women who are butch as men? I think not. People have the right to complain if you misgender them, you don't agree, but insisting on referring to someone counter to their wishes isn't about being correct... It's being an arsehole, plain and simple. Some trans women work in construction, some trans men are seamstresses, some cis men like to wear skirts, some cis women dress like lumberjacks. Treating someone different than their wishes because of their presentation isn't right, it's not being correct, it's being exclusionary, because you're violating them as a person. So yeah, a trans woman who presents like a man has every right to be mad at you, if you treat her opposite her identity. This is because you're actively invalidating her as a woman. Presentation is not identity, period.

 

[Terminal Blue]

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).

Clearly, you also had a psychology teacher who had never learned anything about psychology or read a book on the subject.

Because it's pretty much a foundational principle in psychology, going back to Freud and still verifiable with the most basic observation of a very young child, that "gender-fluidity" (or "congenital bisexuality" as it used to be called, bisexuality in this case meaning possessing two sexes rather than desiring two sexes, because early theorizations of sex/gender were not very sophisticated) is the state into which human beings are born. The attachment to gender is, as far as anyone can tell, merely a neurotic self-concept formed in early childhood.

In other news, God, this is a thread full of hateful fucking bullshit isn't it..

Also, speaking of grammar (yeah, this is English, we only have gendered pronouns as a grammatical relic from Latin, they're basically meaningless otherwise) what the fuck is with that poll question?

 

[Zontar]

Clearly, you also had a psychology teacher who had never learned anything about psychology or read a book on the subject.

Ah, the old "I'm no expert, but the expert is wrong" approach.

Because it's pretty much a foundational principle in psychology, going back to Freud and still verifiable with the most basic observation of a very young child, that "gender-fluidity" (or "congenital bisexuality" as it used to be called, bisexuality in this case meaning possessing two sexes rather than desiring two sexes, because early theorizations of sex/gender were not very sophisticated) is the state into which human beings are born. The attachment to gender is, as far as anyone can tell, merely a neurotic self-concept formed in early childhood.

There are two problems with this, first is the fact that Freud was wrong. As in everything he believed about psychology has been disproved. The only reason his work is still taught is because of its place in the history of psychology, not because of its accuracy. It's like how we still teach Lamarckism in basic biology despite it being wrong.

Second, no, there is quite literally no evidence that gender fluidity is a thing, literally nothing. Meanwhile there is a body of evidence showing that within a month from birth instinct will make boys and girls act differently, so at best IF it exists (so far there is no reason to assume it does give biology and instinct are the foundation of gender at a young age) it's only for a very short time before we even see distinct personality develop. IF it exists, it's irrelevant as it goes away even when we intentionally try to maintain it. It's definitely not something that someone can just stand up and say "I'm gender fluid" since instinct will take over and you're either one or the other, sexual or asexual, and in a small percentage of cases happen to have the mind and body not match up. Fluidity doesn't last long enough for us to even show it exists due to ethical concerns, should we really humour people who are far too old to possibly have retained it even if we assume it does exist, since we know they do not in fact have it?

Also, can we also stop disregarding biology in a topic where biology is the driving force?

 

[Terminal Blue]

Ah, the old "I'm no expert, but the expert is wrong" approach.

Unless by "teacher" you mean "has a PhD in gender psychology" I am actually more of an expert at this point. Heck, even if you do, I can still compete..

There are two problems with this, first is the fact that Freud was wrong. As in everything he believed about psychology has been disproved.

Not remotely true.

This is one of those myths they teach first year undergrads in an effort to try and impress on them how serious and scientific their discipline is. While much of Freudian theory is now held in low regard, and with good reason, there is a reason why it is still almost always the first thing any psychology course will teach, because many of its basic observations and terminology remains foundational to the discipline. Heck, it remains in clinical practice to some extent in the form of psychodynamic therapy.

Second, no, there is quite literally no evidence that gender fluidity is a thing, literally nothing. Meanwhile there is a body of evidence showing that within a month from birth instinct will make boys and girls act differently, so at best IF it exists (so far there is no reason to assume it does give biology and instinct are the foundation of gender at a young age) it's only for a very short time before we even see distinct personality develop.

You're misusing the term instinct. That's a bad sign. A baby will instinctively grasp an object placed on its palm, that's an "instinct", it's a clearly defined stimulus response which is demonstrably innate.

Secondly, a few isolated observations with no clear theoretical mechanism is not a "body of evidence". Particularly not when significant counter evidence exists. Even a cursory examination of the scope of human behaviour would show that gender is far, far more complicated in practice than you are giving credit, and produce numerous examples to dispute the notion of "instinctive" male and female behaviours.

IF it exists, it's irrelevant as it goes away even when we intentionally try to maintain it. It's definitely not something that someone can just stand up and say "I'm gender fluid" since instinct will take over and you're either one or the other, sexual or asexual, and in a small percentage of cases happen to have the mind and body not match up.

Right, but since you can only infer "instinct" from observation, and you have absolutely no viable mechanism to explain what it is or why it exists, then the act of standing up and saying "I'm genderfluid" could just as easily be used to infer the existence of an "instinctive" genderfluidity. See above. If the only criteria for declaring something "instinctive" is that it exists, then all human behaviour could be classed as instinctive if we wished.

I mean, you think you're either male or female.. I could very easily say that's impossible because noone can ever be completely male or completely female, and thus that you're simply deluding yourself and making up this crap about instinct to try and disguise your own neurotic attachment to an identity which you've made up. I could say that, I wouldn't because it would be dumb, but it's no more dumb than what you're doing, in fact it's slightly less dumb because there is a clear pattern of socialization aimed at producing socially "normal" men and women, whereas no pattern of socialization intentionally sets out to produce gender non binary persons.

And if your psychology teacher taught you that "biology" was the defining force in gender then they completely mislead you, because that is definitively wrong (as in, it violates the definitions of the terms themselves).

 

[Zontar]

Unless by "teacher" you mean "has a PhD in gender psychology" I am actually more of an expert at this point. Heck, even if you do, I can still compete..

Why do I have a feeling you do not in fact have a PhD in gender psychology.

You're misusing the term instinct. That's a bad sign. A baby will instinctively grasp an object placed on its palm, that's an "instinct", it's a clearly defined stimulus response which is demonstrably innate.

True, but having two sets of objects that are of equal distance from a subject with subjects from one group consistently moving towards one type of object while those of another groups consistently move towards the other does show something instinctual, not that they will move towards an object, but WHICH object they will move towards.

Secondly, a few isolated observations with no clear theoretical mechanism is not a "body of evidence". Particularly not when significant counter evidence exists. Even a cursory examination of the scope of human behaviour would show that gender is far, far more complicated in practice than you are giving credit, and produce numerous examples to dispute the notion of "instinctive" male and female behaviours.

You're right, gender is complicated. Which is something gender ideologues should learn, since the reason we're seeing the sudden rise in fake genders is because they think that anyone who doesn't conform 100% to stereotypes is something other then a man or woman. Plus it would also beg the question that, if it's a social construct, why is it one found in every society regardless of how many thousands or tens of thousands of years separated said societies? Or why many apes with close relations to our species show similar characteristics.

It almost seems that there probably is something instinctual involved, and if not, it's probably universal for a reason other then "because someone said it should".

I mean, you think you're male.. I could very easily say that's impossible because noone can ever be completely male, and thus that you're simply deluding yourself and making up this crap about instinct to try and disguise your own neurotic attachment to an identity which you've made up. I could say that, I wouldn't because it would be dumb, but it's no more dumb than what you're doing, in fact it's slightly less dumb because there is a clear pattern of socialization aimed at producing socially "normal" men and women, whereas no pattern of socialization intentionally sets out to produce gender non binary persons.

So what you're saying is because something we have as a society observed since... well we can't really say since historical records don't go that far back, is something you could more easily defend as made up in comparison to something we have literally no evidence even exists and is at best a hypothetical temporary state which we grow out of faster then we learn to walk or talk?

And if your psychology teacher taught you that "biology" was the defining force in gender then they completely mislead you, because that is definitively wrong (as in, it violates the definitions of the terms themselves).

No, she didn't go that far. My biology professor, on the other hand, did, though the open warfare between biology and psychology (and the rest of sociology for that matter) is one that isn't a secret to anyone in academia, though it's a bit of a one sided fight since only one side has hard evidence instead of educated guesses on the matter (and even then "educated" may be a stretch in some cases, such as the entire field of gender studies in its totality).

 

[Adeptus Aspartem]

You call people you don't know whatever you think is appropriate, if you're wrong people will correct you and that's that.
If someone throws a hissyfit because of it instead of correcting you, then turn around and leave - because there's nothing to gain. I mean if you're pre-op (for example) and still look like whatever you're born as, don't be mad when people call you the respective pronoun - which is correct in around 99/100 cases?

I get that misgendering can be very annoying, i had to deal with that myself in the roughly first 10 years of my life, because i just looked like a little goldylock-girl. But as long the people are makin' mistakes because they don't know you, there's no reason to rip them to shreds.
Sure, if someone's a dickhead about it and refuses to change the pronoun then feel free to tell him he's a ****.

 

[sumanoskae]

I cannot begin to describe the depth of the void that exists where all the fucks I don't give about what people want to call themselves would be.

I have a friend who one day decided he wanted to be called Ulysses, so I started calling him Ulysses, because doing so had absolutely no tangible effect on my life whatsoever. Perhaps he likes to think it has a significant effect on his life, but I can't imagine that it does, and I think he's smart enough to understand that.

It flummoxes me how people can get so anal and defensive about what technically constitutes a proper use for "He" or "She". I'll call you whatever you want to be called, because as far as I'm concerned, the terminology is rendered meaningless when divorced from the objective standard of your birth gender.

If all that needs to happen for you to be classified as a girl is for you to decide that you are, then the term has no point. I'm okay with that, but I'm still going to mentally catalog your gender based on your biology, because from my perspective that's the only thing it determines about you.