What does "identifies as" mean

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Are you serious or are you taking the piss with this?

Taking the piss, obviously. Faced with the conundrum of whether "I identify as ____" means entitlement to arbitrary and unjustified privileges, or means you do you, and having no solution, taking the piss is the only option left.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by wareyin

Well, since there's no such thing as a fuchsia cat with telepathic powers, I think you're trying to say that claiming to be a woman is similarly claiming to be something that doesn't exist. But, since women do in fact exist, I think your example may not be the best for what you're trying to say.

I think you're tap-dancing around having to give a coherent response. But I'm feeling generous and patient today, so I'll give it another go. One more chance for you to engage in the essence of the question in good faith.

If I self-declare myself to be 5'10" tall, even though the tape-measure says I'm 5'0" tall... does my self-identity as a tall person obligate the person running the roller coaster to let me on when the minimum height requirement is 5'4"?

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Are you serious or are you taking the piss with this?

YOU are the one who claimed it does not happen, YOU are the one who asserted that the hypothetical was not possible. Then when given MULTIPLE examples of bearded males claiming to be women... YOU are the one who tap-danced away with some semantic No True Scotsman claim that somehow those don't qualify because... unspecified reasons.

This is pretty basic critical thinking.

You: X does not happen
Me: Here are multiple examples of X happening
You: Well, that doesn't count, you cherry picked and besides those are actually X and I don't accept them...

That's odd, I don't remember saying anything about cherry picking, nor do I remember limiting shuttit's statement just to the beard.


And, going back it looks like no, I never did either of those things. So...since you guys want to claim big muscular bricklayers with full beards are claiming to be women, you still have to find an example of that.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by wareyin

That's odd, I don't remember saying anything about cherry picking, nor do I remember limiting shuttit's statement just to the beard.


And, going back it looks like no, I never did either of those things. So...since you guys want to claim big muscular bricklayers with full beards are claiming to be women, you still have to find an example of that.

What the hell is your sticking point? Is it the lack of evidence that they are literally bricklayers? Is that what you're hanging your hat on?

I provided several examples of sizeable males with full bears, all of whom claim to be women. You dismissed those examples and hand-waved them away... and you're hear again claiming you've never been given an example.

So I can only conclude that you're playing shallow semantic games and deciding they don't count, because the really important part is the "bricklayer" element. FFS, this is an absurd argument.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

What the hell is your sticking point? Is it the lack of evidence that they are literally bricklayers? Is that what you're hanging your hat on?

I provided several examples of sizeable males with full bears, all of whom claim to be women. You dismissed those examples and hand-waved them away... and you're hear again claiming you've never been given an example.

So I can only conclude that you're playing shallow semantic games and deciding they don't count, because the really important part is the "bricklayer" element. FFS, this is an absurd argument.

No, the "bricklayer" part that shuttit used was meant to imply big muscles. I can see how you're a bit confused because I only literally said "big muscular bricklayer" and you have that weird reading problem where you can't see the first 2 adjectives, so I'll give you a pass.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by wareyin

No, the "bricklayer" part that shuttit used was meant to imply big muscles. I can see how you're a bit confused because I only literally said "big muscular bricklayer" and you have that weird reading problem where you can't see the first 2 adjectives, so I'll give you a pass.

So you concede figurative language. Gotcha.

What is your reasoning for dismissing the examples I provided of fairly muscular males with beards claiming to be women? Can you reiterate exactly why the selection of beardy males who claim to be women somehow do not qualify as beardy males who claim to be women?

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

So you concede figurative language. Gotcha.

What is your reasoning for dismissing the examples I provided of fairly muscular males with beards claiming to be women? Can you reiterate exactly why the selection of beardy males who claim to be women somehow do not qualify as beardy males who claim to be women?

Oh, I know it was figurative language. I know that shuttit, like you, wants everyone to associate trans women with big muscular menial labor type men who don't really think they're women, they just want to get into women's bathrooms. shuttit didn't even try to claim it actually happened, while you decided that if you could cherrypick (there you go, I used the word for you) one single bit of the entire scenario and find an example of that tiny aspect, you got to claim that all the rest had been proven.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by wareyin

Oh, I know it was figurative language. I know that shuttit, like you, wants everyone to associate trans women with big muscular menial labor type men who don't really think they're women, they just want to get into women's bathrooms. shuttit didn't even try to claim it actually happened, while you decided that if you could cherrypick (there you go, I used the word for you) one single bit of the entire scenario and find an example of that tiny aspect, you got to claim that all the rest had been proven.

Your engagement does not seem to be in good faith. You said it doesn't happen, I demonstrated that it does happen.

But you still seem to be arguing that it doesn't happen... but if it does happen, it's not a big deal, those nasty females are just making **** up so they can be dicks to the people with dicks.

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

I was going to ask about that, thanks for the information.

I guess I have always accepted anyone within any church, including Catholic and Orthodox, as a Christian. Maybe they're only being polite when I get the impression they accept me likewise. Who knows?

But even there, when I dig right down, if I found that someone who claimed they were a Christian but had not been baptised at all, I'd need a really, really convincing reason why not, and right now I can't think of one.

Because the act of baptism is, in essence, a meaningless ritual that doesn't define how a person feels or what they believe?

Can a couple not be deeply devoted, in love and living together, without going throught the formal marriage ceremony?

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by GlennB

Because the act of baptism is, in essence, a meaningless ritual that doesn't define how a person feels or what they believe?

In Anabaptist tradition (including various sectarian offspring) adult baptism is a meaningful expression of one's most deeply held beliefs.

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by GlennB

Because the act of baptism is, in essence, a meaningless ritual that doesn't define how a person feels or what they believe?

Can a couple not be deeply devoted, in love and living together, without going throught the formal marriage ceremony?

They can be deeply devoted, in love and living together, but they won't be legally husband and wife. (Or wife and wife, or husband and husband, depending.) They will not be a married couple.

In the same way someone may be an exemplary human being, living his life by the principles of Christ's teaching, but if he isn't baptised, one is at least entitled to wonder why not.

I'm sure your deeply devoted, in love and living together couple will have their reasons for not being a married couple, but nevertheless they are not a married couple. Similarly, whatever the reason for the exemplary human being not being baptised, the absence of that ritual excludes him from being recognised as a Christian by pretty much every Christian organisation I know.

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

In Anabaptist tradition (including various sectarian offspring) adult baptism is a meaningful expression of one's most deeply held beliefs.

In my own church, infant baptism is a meaningful expression of the acceptance of the child into the family of the church. "Though little children do not understand these things, yet is the promise also to them. They are the heirs of the covenant of grace." It is expected that, when the child reaches an age when he or she feels able to make the commitment personally, a second commitment known as the "profession of faith" will be made. Or maybe not, as the case may be. It's up to you at that point.

Some people resent not being aware of their baptism, and subsequently slope off to another denomination such as the Baptists to have it done all over again. That's their choice. Most people remember their parents' description of the day they were welcomed into the church community and find meaning in photographs and mementoes such as a christening mug. (I apparently slept through the entire performance.)

These rituals are as meaningful as you make them. They also carry privileges, such as (in my own church) the right to take communion, even if the profession of faith has not yet been made.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Some people resent not being aware of their baptism, and subsequently slope off to another denomination such as the Baptists to have it done all over again.

Personally I've been baptized thrice, once as an infant and then again in two slightly different branches of Baptist tradition. These days, I'm not someone who "identifies as" belonging to any of these faiths, for reasons best discussed in another subforum.

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

They can be deeply devoted, in love and living together, but they won't be legally husband and wife. (Or wife and wife, or husband and husband, depending.) They will not be a married couple.

In the same way someone may be an exemplary human being, living his life by the principles of Christ's teaching, but if he isn't baptised, one is at least entitled to wonder why not.

I'm sure your deeply devoted, in love and living together couple will have their reasons for not being a married couple, but nevertheless they are not a married couple. Similarly, whatever the reason for the exemplary human being not being baptised, the absence of that ritual excludes him from being recognised as a Christian by pretty much every Christian organisation I know.

Then I'd say there's something profoundly wrong with those organisations. Recognition of God, Christ and Christian teaching doesn't become established by having water splashed over your head while someone utters ritual words, it stems from belief.

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by GlennB

Then I'd say there's something profoundly wrong with those organisations. Recognition of God, Christ and Christian teaching doesn't become established by having water splashed over your head while someone utters ritual words, it stems from belief.

The point is that when someone comes to a belief that is significant, they then get baptised, if they weren't already. If they choose not to do that, it's an indication that whatever they believe, it doesn't line up with Christianity in the "accepting Jesus Christ as my Saviour and Lord" sense. It's the outward sign of the inward belief.

Maybe a bit like the man who insists that he loves his wife dearly, but never touches her and snaps her face off if she speaks to him? If he really loves her, why is he not behaving as if he did? Similarly, if someone is "really" a Christian, why are they not partaking of the ritual that is the outward sign of their belief?

[bruto]

Originally Posted by wareyin

It's going to turn into the same language it has always been. We already have to do that. We, as a species that communicates and has less than average intelligence members, have always had to choose our terminology so as not to risk confusing people.

Conservatives whine often enough that they're ignored by the "elite", yet now you want to complain that we shouldn't have to speak in ways that they understand?

It's just another way to complain, I think, and to assert one's superiority. Plenty of people on this board and elsewhere blame others for misunderstanding them. Kind of like a downmarket Ezra Pound. It's not my fault you don't read Greek.

[p0lka]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Labels are a useful tool, with practical applications. Like all tools, they can be misused, or over-used. But it's a poor workman who dismisses tools.

No one should ever dismiss useful tools. I'm dismissing labels.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by p0lka

No one should ever dismiss useful tools. I'm dismissing labels.

Labels are useful tools.

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Similarly, if someone is "really" a Christian, why are they not partaking of the ritual that is the outward sign of their belief?

Key word highlighted. The ritual is a meaningless outward sign. I recall that Jesus said something about the nature of worship and ritual, like how it's fine to stay at home and do it privately without making a big public show of it. I might need to check that in the morning.

[Rolfe]

You might like to check his actual actions in that particular respect also.

[Steersman]

Columnist Cathy Young tweeted several years ago this take on the (murky) concept:

Quote:

#BathroomWars 2020: Otherkin who identify as dogs challenge public urination bans b/c they should be able to piss on fire hydrants

Rather large number of people don't seem to have a clue about the difference between "being X" and "identifying-as X".

I blame the ubiquity of video games ... ;-)

[Steersman]

Originally Posted by wareyin

... So...since you guys want to claim big muscular bricklayers with full beards are claiming to be women, you still have to find an example of that.

You might want to search YouTube for a video titled "It's Ma'am" by Refik Mehmeti ...

And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

[p0lka]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Labels are useful tools.

They can be, depends on context I suppose.

In this context, people wanting to define themselves as a particular label rather than just be themselves might cause a certain amount of the anxiety and other issues people deal with.
I think it would be better without labels.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by p0lka

In this context, people wanting to define themselves as a particular label rather than just be themselves might cause a certain amount of the anxiety and other issues people deal with.

Self-identifying labels are useful for finding like-minded people, e.g. scientific skeptics, Theravadan Buddhists, aspiring rationalists, evangelical Xns.

Can't we safely assume the same is true for the all the various and multifarious genders?

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Thermal

Can a homely person identify as sexually irresistible, and demand others treat them accordingly?

You might want to check with Shemp on this one.

[p0lka]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Self-identifying labels are useful for finding like-minded people, e.g. scientific skeptics, Theravadan Buddhists, aspiring rationalists, evangelical Xns.

Can't we safely assume the same is true for the all the various and multifarious genders?

It's the defining oneself by a label that I think causes problems, whatever that label might be.

regarding where the thread has slided(slid) to as I'm replying to this post, it's bloody labels again!

I think gender is a culture thing and it seems independent of the sex of a thing.
The sex of a thing can also be complicated.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by p0lka

It's the defining oneself by a label that I think causes problems, whatever that label might be.

regarding where the thread has slided(slid) to as I'm replying to this post, it's bloody labels again!

I think gender is a culture thing and it seems independent of the sex of a thing.
The sex of a thing can also be complicated.

Don't you think it's curious the extent to which there are commonalities in terms of gender across cultures and millennia. There are exceptions to be sure, but there is a lot of commonality.

[p0lka]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

Don't you think it's curious the extent to which there are commonalities in terms of gender across cultures and millennia. There are exceptions to be sure, but there is a lot of commonality.

Just thought about it, yeah. The exceptions are interesting.

Want to map religion on to commonalities and exceptions, see if there's a link. It's probably already done I'm gonna see if I can find anything.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by p0lka

Just thought about it, yeah. The exceptions are interesting.

Want to map religion on to commonalities and exceptions, see if there's a link. It's probably already done I'm gonna see if I can find anything.

Sure, religion is part of culture and impacts all this stuff (and is a reflection of it too), but you get lots of things repeating in wildly different cultures. Honour culture tied to masculinity and female purity, for example, is a theme that comes up over and over.

[theprestige]

Self-identities arising from gender dysphoria are presumably a mechanism for coping with the distress of the condition. We can certainly have a reasoned, science-based discussion about whether affirming these identities are a healthy part of a medically sound course of treatment for the dysphoria. We can have a reasoned, science-based discussion of how far this treatment should extend, and for what medical value. Should it include social transition? Bodily alteration? Transcending of sex-segregated spaces?

We can have that discussion - but only about people who have actually been diagnosed with gender dysphoria, and who have been prescribed a transgender identity as part of their treatment. Unfortunately, hanging the discussion on a recognized medical condition, its diagnosis, and its treatment, is anathema to trans-activists. As I'm fond of saying, this would be a very different discussion if it were actually on this basis. I think that LJ and others would find the reaction much more humanitarian and supportive if the discussion were on a sound medical basis.

But it isn't, and TRAs don't want it to be.

So that leaves us with self-identities not arising from gender dysphoria (which in LJ's framework isn't even a medical condition anyway). For me, self-identities arising from whim or whimsy or ideological capture or any other "non-medical" process need very little in the way of accommodations in public policy. But that's exactly what LJ and others want.

A man says he's really a sexy blue fox and also a wind elf, no big deal. A man says he's really a woman, and suddenly he has a right to demand recognition as such. He has a right to transcend sex segregation, and suddenly the burden is on everyone else to show why it shouldn't be so.

Tolerating - even welcoming! - genderqueer expressions is one thing. That I can get behind. I think preferred pronouns are silly, but if all you ask is that I not be a jerk to you because you wear your fursona on your sleeve, that I can happily do.

But transcending sex segregation is something else entirely. That's intolerable to me. And to the extent that all the seemingly innocuous accommodations - such as preferred pronouns - are part of an effort to normalize transsexuality, those become intolerable to me as well.

There's probably a lot of innocent transgender folk out there, who don't deserve my suspicion and reticence. But they're getting it anyway, because they're being used as stalking horses for the transsexual rights activists, and among them are some who are co-conspirators.

Bringing it back around to the central topic of the thread: What does "identifies as" mean, when it comes to transgender self-identity? Does it mean "I suffer from gender dysphoria, and adopting a transgender identity helps me ameliorate the distress I feel; please do what you can to support this"? Or does it mean, "it's like a fursona, no big deal, feel free to leave us alone if this isn't your thing"?

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Bringing it back around to the central topic of the thread: What does "identifies as" mean, when it comes to transgender self-identity? Does it mean "I suffer from gender dysphoria, and adopting a transgender identity helps me ameliorate the distress I feel; please do what you can to support this"? Or does it mean, "it's like a fursona, no big deal, feel free to leave us alone if this isn't your thing"?

I think you are missing out the aspect that, if you accept the logic of the TRA "identifies as", "trans-women are women" crowd, there is nothing to your gender beyond identity either. The nature of your identity must be reconceptualised as well.

[xjx388]

I have split off a bunch of posts to AAH. They mostly pertained to defining sex or discussing DSD. I chose not to move those into existing threads so as not to make a "dog's breakfast" of everything. I do understand why there was such a significant derailment, but keep in mind that this thread is about what it means to identify as X. Of course there is going to be some overlap, but there are already threads about whether or not trans women are women and DSD and all attendant issues should be in those threads. Feel free to contextualize posts now in AAH into their appropriate threads if you feel like it.

Responding to this mod box in thread will be off topic Posted By:xjx388

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by GlennB

Then I'd say there's something profoundly wrong with those organisations. Recognition of God, Christ and Christian teaching doesn't become established by having water splashed over your head while someone utters ritual words, it stems from belief.

Under Christian belief, which is predicated on Judaism, there needs to be at least two witnesses for something to become factual. Hence, the idea is, you are only Christened/Married if there are at least two witnesses to the fact.

So, when it comes to matters of legal fact, you cannot 'self identify'.

Tom Daley hit the matter on the head recently when he said the reason for perceived homophobia in Commonwealth countries, was thanks to the British Empire that gave them homophobic laws in the first place. For example, the 1861 acts against the persons, section 76 and 77, has been repealed in the UK but not in other commonwealth countries, when really law is ipso facto cold, dogmatic and impartial. For example, if it is against the law to steal bread, then you can be charged with the crime of stealing bread and there is nothing judgmental or moralistic about it, it is just a cold ojective going through the motions. So, a distinction between what is legal fact and what is 'self identity' is necessary.


Don't forget Church law or cannon law still has a very strong influence.

[theprestige]

Is cannon law like admiralty law?

[Vixen]

Now that I have been some distance away from England, it does strike me that self-identification strongly revolves around class, and is codified in such a way that its complexities would bemuse a visitor from outer space. From primary school onwards, I was asked questions by my teachers, which in retrospect I see now were nakedly prying to discover one's 'social class'. For example, being asked for my parents' occupation or did we have a car.

There are certain children your parents do not want you to mix with or adopt their way of talking. People are not even much conscious there is a class system until they are out of it. For example, having worked in the West End a lot, I was used to people who identified as gay, yet looking back now, they would all have been the 'more upper class' types and you NEVER saw a (working class) footballer come out as gay. I think there is just one who has come out in the entire league, and maybe only two or three in the entire history of the Football League, some 150 years or so old. Yet, every second lovey is self professed gay or bisexual, and yes, the acting profession is very top heavy with the upper classes, who can afford the periods of 'rest' (unemployment) and years before landing a 'break', likewise barristers and articled clerks, who spend years in chambers living off very little but the bank of Mummy and Daddy. So of course, certain professions automatically have barriers of entry to the socially mobile, and there is actually very little social mobility, even after all this time.

So, in England, the higher your social class, and the more you can fall back on your parents, the more you can 'self identify' to your heart's content. The working classes daren't.

If you are an art student, the more you can wear outrageous fashion and be a 'trend setter'.

So, this in a nutshell is how people self identify in England.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Is cannon law like admiralty law?

Only if hoist by one's own petard.