ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags police incidents , police misconduct charges , transgender incidents , transgender issues

Reply
Old 31st August 2011, 03:23 AM   #41
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 46,753
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
How are we to know she's not just a crossdresser?
If currently crossdressed I believe that pronouns associated with attire are considered appropriate. So a draw queen dressed as a woman is referred to as a woman.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2011, 03:31 AM   #42
DrDave
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 4,300
Originally Posted by Lamuella View Post
it seems to be the simplest and most obvious form of politeness that if someone is presenting as a woman, you call her a woman, and if someone is presenting as a man, you call him a man.
But make sure it's not a rugby team out on a stag do first
DrDave is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2011, 03:58 AM   #43
timhau
NWO Litter Technician
 
timhau's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Looks like Finland. Smells like Finland. Quacks like Finland. Where the hell am I?
Posts: 13,132
Originally Posted by I Ratant View Post
A friend was stabbed here, when the guy pestering her determined she had no interest in men.
Wasn't a life-threatening wound.
Did that help foster her interest in men?
__________________
When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord, in his wisdom, doesn't work that way. I just stole one and asked Him to forgive me.
- Emo Philips
timhau is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2011, 04:00 AM   #44
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 46,753
Originally Posted by Aepervius View Post
Not to add fire on oil,m or oil on fire, but as far as I can tell this has never been the culturaly taught things, at least not in the culture I was born with. (France / banlieu / Paris). There I learnt that the gender you are called in, is the one you are born in, "you gender=your sex". Only later transgendered began to ask to be called by the gender they feel they fit in, or at least it started to spread.
They spread because they are the academic definitions. Gender comes from language and us not limited to male and female. Some languages have more like six or so genders. I remember hearing about one with four those being male, female, inanimate and edible.

So with this anthropologists started to use the word gender to refer to a societies view on men and women, as they needed a term for that, as societies view gender differently.

At the same time people in the public started using the word gender instead of sex as sex is a dirty word.


Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2011, 04:50 AM   #45
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sigil, the city of doors
Posts: 14,581
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
They spread because they are the academic definitions. Gender comes from language and us not limited to male and female. Some languages have more like six or so genders. I remember hearing about one with four those being male, female, inanimate and edible.

So with this anthropologists started to use the word gender to refer to a societies view on men and women, as they needed a term for that, as societies view gender differently.

At the same time people in the public started using the word gender instead of sex as sex is a dirty word.


Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk
I quite disagree with the society view changing on transgender, particularly your association with gender/language : that association was existing before and society view on transgender was as it was.

Furthermore what you said MAY be right in some language, but in my language where there are two gender , male and female, and where the word "gender" is only used to describe noun in dictionary (genre) but not sexual preference (gender c'est le sexe ; and sex is also le sexe) that it is quite irrational that because suddenly the French folk see some folk 3090miles away using 7 or 12121 new gender , suddenly they wake up to the reality of transgendering. Pull my other finger. Really.

IMHO the reason transgender are more accepted is because the media explosion and Internet explosion allowed them to express in media and show themselves instead of the traditional media caricature. And the new societal acceptance shows in that politesse is expected. But remember : politesse does not mean acceptance (ETA oon the individual level). maybe I am intolerant, idiot, old fashioned, encrusted and unable to move from my belief, but I cannot see a M>F or F>M as either gender or sex. But I certainly would not treat such person uncivilly.

Last edited by Aepervius; 31st August 2011 at 04:55 AM.
Aepervius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2011, 05:36 AM   #46
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 20,293
Originally Posted by Dessi
Originally Posted by WildCat
How are we to know she's not just a crossdresser?
Correct answer is: use feminine pronouns anyway.

Proper etiquette when addressing crossdressers, drag queens, and drag kings is to use gender pronouns which are appropriate for their gender presentation (this is exactly how crossdressers refer to themselves and members of their communities). Some people don't mind what you call them, but some do; for what its worth, you run a 0% chance of offending a MtF crossdresser addressing her as "miss" rather than "sir". And if you don't know, just ask.
Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
The [woman in the video Dessi posted] seems a little sensitive to the obvious question "are you a man or a woman?" Blaming others for asking this question seems petty.
Just saying.

Originally Posted by Soapy Sam View Post
Surely the issue here is "Cop charged with shooting five people."
Indeed!
carlitos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2011, 05:58 AM   #47
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 46,753
Originally Posted by Aepervius View Post
I quite disagree with the society view changing on transgender, particularly your association with gender/language : that association was existing before and society view on transgender was as it was.

Furthermore what you said MAY be right in some language, but in my language where there are two gender , male and female, and where the word "gender" is only used to describe noun in dictionary (genre) but not sexual preference (gender c'est le sexe ; and sex is also le sexe) that it is quite irrational that because suddenly the French folk see some folk 3090miles away using 7 or 12121 new gender , suddenly they wake up to the reality of transgendering. Pull my other finger. Really.

IMHO the reason transgender are more accepted is because the media explosion and Internet explosion allowed them to express in media and show themselves instead of the traditional media caricature. And the new societal acceptance shows in that politesse is expected. But remember : politesse does not mean acceptance (ETA oon the individual level). maybe I am intolerant, idiot, old fashioned, encrusted and unable to move from my belief, but I cannot see a M>F or F>M as either gender or sex. But I certainly would not treat such person uncivilly.
Your response failed to grasp that I was not talking about trans people but the word gender. Linguistically genders do not all refer to people. Societies with multiple linguistic genders can have only two social genders. Of course there are plenty of societies that have more than two genders for people, india has started issuing three genders in passports.

But that has little to do with transgendered people because by the nature of most of them they accept social genders they just want to be recategorized.

All you are doing is coming across as a cultural chauvinist, which is odd for someone from a culture that thinks teapots breed.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2011, 07:27 AM   #48
sarge
Philosopher
 
sarge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Fayetteville, NC
Posts: 6,254
I'm honestly confused by some of the explanations offered here.

If a person is genetically male and retains male gear, how is it inaccurate to call this person male? I get that it might be offensive, but I don't understand the argument that it is inaccurate. A man is a man until he isn't, then she is a woman.

It is reasonable for the average person, unfamiliar with the subject, to be confused, and it is not reasonable for a male undergoing a gender change to be offended if someone calls him a male - especially in the absence of an intent to offend.
__________________
My previous signature risked (unknowingly) violating the Hatch Act!
sarge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2011, 07:42 AM   #49
DrDave
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 4,300
You know who else used to try and use ignorance to try and justify offending transgendered people? HitlerThunder


[/Trying to start a new type of Godwin]
DrDave is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2011, 07:48 AM   #50
Lamuella
Master Poster
 
Lamuella's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,480
Originally Posted by sarge View Post
I'm honestly confused by some of the explanations offered here.

If a person is genetically male and retains male gear, how is it inaccurate to call this person male? I get that it might be offensive, but I don't understand the argument that it is inaccurate. A man is a man until he isn't, then she is a woman.

It is reasonable for the average person, unfamiliar with the subject, to be confused, and it is not reasonable for a male undergoing a gender change to be offended if someone calls him a male - especially in the absence of an intent to offend.
if you're not going to have sex with a person, why do you care if they have or don't have "male gear"? Why would you even know what "gear" they have?

If someone is clearly presenting as being a particular gender, why is it confusing to use the noun and pronoun associated with that gender?
Lamuella is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2011, 07:54 AM   #51
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 15,971
Originally Posted by Lamuella View Post
if you're not going to have sex with a person, why do you care if they have or don't have "male gear"? Why would you even know what "gear" they have?

If someone is clearly presenting as being a particular gender, why is it confusing to use the noun and pronoun associated with that gender?
I believe it is that 'clearly' part that is the issue. How does a woman present as a man? A guy can put on a dress, but even women's pants are worn by non-transgender men now. I've been called 'miss' many, many, many times based only on my very long hair (and then I turn around and they say sorry).

Obviously I agree that if someone is clearly presenting as one gender, you address them as such. However, I've been in a situation where I address a woman as a man, just to find out she wanted to be addressed as a woman.


That said, it's less than productive to insist that there is no way to know which is the less likely to offend word.
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2011, 08:03 AM   #52
sarge
Philosopher
 
sarge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Fayetteville, NC
Posts: 6,254
Originally Posted by Lamuella View Post
if you're not going to have sex with a person, why do you care if they have or don't have "male gear"? Why would you even know what "gear" they have?
I don't care. I am asking about the accuracy, rather than the appropriateness of using a gender-specific term.

Knowingly using a term to describe someone that is technically accurate but understood to be offensive is crass. Being accurately described absent an intent to offend should not lead to offense, however.

Quote:
If someone is clearly presenting as being a particular gender, why is it confusing to use the noun and pronoun associated with that gender?
Perhaps I am simply inexperienced, but it seems rare around here that anything is clearly presented. It is common to see an obvious male dressed in a manner usually associated with females. Why would the average person be expected to know to refer to this person as female?
__________________
My previous signature risked (unknowingly) violating the Hatch Act!
sarge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2011, 08:20 AM   #53
Dessi
Species Traitor
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Omaha, NE
Posts: 3,614
Originally Posted by sarge View Post
If a person is genetically male and retains male gear, how is it inaccurate to call this person male? I get that it might be offensive, but I don't understand the argument that it is inaccurate. A man is a man until he isn't, then she is a woman.
"Man" and "woman" gender words, not genital words. In the 99% of cases where you're not having a conversation about transgender people, no one's going to care about whether you mean "gender-identified male" or "biological male at birth" -- but, if you're going to talk about transgender people, it does matter and there's no good reason not to use words appropriate for their gender presentation. These words are not only appropriate for their gender, but accurate. There are no circumstances where you'd ever call a transwoman, pre-op or post-op, a man.

The only good reason to use the term "male" in reference to transwoman is in the phrase "male-to-female transsexual", and you'd really only see that word in clinical settings, or in contexts where you have a good reason to draw attention to a person's transgender status.

Quote:
It is reasonable for the average person, unfamiliar with the subject, to be confused, and it is not reasonable for a male undergoing a gender change to be offended if someone calls him a male - especially in the absence of an intent to offend.
People make mistakes, and that's ok. However, most people very quickly figure out the right terminology, and if they argue that transwoman are men, that's offensive. Its equivalent to habitually referring to mentally handicapped as "morons" simply because that used to be a clinical term 100 years ago.

I'm not accusing you as the sort of person to do this, but believe me, I've seen lots of forums where someone consciously refers to transgender women as males. They quickly get called out on it, and then fall back on "what did I do? I'm just using the scientifically correct words" -- people know what they're saying and why they say it, and the only reason a person uses "male" or "man" like that is to denigrate transwomen as being "not real women" or "men dressed like women".
__________________
>^.^<

Last edited by Dessi; 31st August 2011 at 08:38 AM.
Dessi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2011, 08:29 AM   #54
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 60,134
Originally Posted by Dessi View Post
Please don't take this this personally, but there are absolutely no circumstances where its acceptable to refer to a pre-op transwoman as a dude or "transgender man". The former term is offensive to the extreme as well as being inaccurate, the latter term is a synonym for female-to-male transsexuals and makes no sense applying to male-to-female trans people.

For your amusement:
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
Thanks Dessi.

That was great.
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2011, 08:32 AM   #55
I Ratant
Penultimate Amazing
 
I Ratant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 19,258
Originally Posted by timhau View Post
Did that help foster her interest in men?
.
Amazingly enough, she continued eschewing men.
Can't understand that.
I Ratant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2011, 08:32 AM   #56
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 20,293
In Guadalajara there is a population of chicos-chicas that appear nightly in a certain district. They seem to self-identify with this term. I apologize for derailing this conversation, by the way.
carlitos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2011, 08:34 AM   #57
Captain Obvious
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 323
Originally Posted by Dessi View Post
Please don't take this this personally, but there are absolutely no circumstances where its acceptable to refer to a pre-op transwoman as a dude or "transgender man". The former term is offensive to the extreme as well as being inaccurate, the latter term is a synonym for female-to-male transsexuals and makes no sense applying to male-to-female trans people.

For your amusement:
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
Can someone let me know if it's safe to click on this video while eating a hotdog?
Captain Obvious is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2011, 08:39 AM   #58
sarge
Philosopher
 
sarge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Fayetteville, NC
Posts: 6,254
Originally Posted by Dessi View Post
"Man" and "woman" gender words, not genital words.
According to who?

For most of us, "man" and "woman" are genders defined by the presence of the matching genitalia. A "man" has male genitalia and a "woman" has female genitalia - and it is perfectly accurate to use the terms "male" and "man" interchangably most of the time. I can understand that, for someone desiring to change the gender of birth, that such a description might be offensive, but I still don't understand how it is inaccurate.

The possibilty remains that I am failing to actually understand your argument,

Quote:
In the 99% of cases where you're not having a conversation about transgender people, no one's going to care about whether you mean "gender-identified male" or "biological male at birth" -- but, if you're going to talk about transgender people, it does matter whether and there's no good reason not to use words appropriate for their gender presentation. These words are not only appropriate for their gender, but accurate. There are no circumstances where you'd ever call a transwoman, pre-op or post-op, a man.
You'll have to accept that I am not arguing just to be argumentative, and that I have no desire to offend, but...

It is always accurate to describe a pre-op transgender person born male as a "man", no matter how offensive it might be. That it might be offensive might make it inappropriate to do so - but even that does not make it inaccurate to do so.

Quote:
The only good reason to use the term "male" in reference to transwoman is in the phrase "male-to-female transsexual", and you'd really only see that word in clinical settings, or in contexts where you have a good reason to draw attention to a person's transgender status.
Had you used "man" instead of "male", I would be closer to agreeing. "Male" is more specifically dependent on biology than "man" is.


Quote:
People make mistakes, and that's ok. However, most people very quickly figure out the right terminology, and if they argue that transwoman are men, that's offensive.
Except that "transwomen" may actually be "men", and are certainly at some point "male".

Of course, it is still rude to intentionally offend just for the sake of offending. For my part, on the very rare occasion that it'll ever come up, I will use gender neutral terms so as to avoid unintentionally offending anyone.
__________________
My previous signature risked (unknowingly) violating the Hatch Act!

Last edited by sarge; 31st August 2011 at 09:12 AM.
sarge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2011, 08:40 AM   #59
DrDave
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 4,300
Originally Posted by Captain Obvious View Post
Can someone let me know if it's safe to click on this video while eating a hotdog?
Since men think about sex every 6 seconds make sure you eat that hot dog quickly else it'll feel awkward
DrDave is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2011, 08:40 AM   #60
Lamuella
Master Poster
 
Lamuella's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,480
Originally Posted by sarge View Post
I don't care. I am asking about the accuracy, rather than the appropriateness of using a gender-specific term.

Knowingly using a term to describe someone that is technically accurate but understood to be offensive is crass. Being accurately described absent an intent to offend should not lead to offense, however.
If someone's presenting as a particular gender, but you don't think their presented gender matches their sex, trying to be "technically accurate" is pretty much by definition rude. Your "accuracy" can come across as calling them a fraud.

Quote:
Perhaps I am simply inexperienced, but it seems rare around here that anything is clearly presented. It is common to see an obvious male dressed in a manner usually associated with females. Why would the average person be expected to know to refer to this person as female?
easy mental checklist:

1) is this person intending to appear as a particular gender?
2) Which gender is this person intending to appear as?

If it's possible to answer these questions, then you refer to the person as the gender they are expressing.

I can understand there being circumstances where someone is either not intending to express a gender, or intending not to express a gender, or where you can't be clear what gender someone is expressing. Back in my university days, I had a friend called Andy. We were in the same drama society, went for a few of the same auditions, etc. Andy, either through choice or through my inability to pick up on such things, did not express a clear gender to me, through a mixture of fairly androgyne features and fairly neutral clothing. I think I'd known Andy a month before I found out that her name was short for "andrea" and she was female. I neither know not care whether Andy was biologically male or female because I wasn't trying to be romantically involved with her. It didn't particularly matter, and didn't really come up when we were talking because "you" and "I" are both genderless. Why would the supposed accuracy of a gender pronoun be of any significance?

Last edited by Lamuella; 31st August 2011 at 08:45 AM. Reason: changing a couple of inaccurate words.
Lamuella is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2011, 08:40 AM   #61
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 60,134
Originally Posted by Dessi View Post
I'm not accusing you as the sort of person to do this, but believe me, I've seen lots of forums where someone consciously refers to transgender women as males. They quickly get called out on it, and then fall back on "what did I do? I'm just using the scientifically correct words" -- people know what they're saying and why they say it, and the only reason a person uses incorrect terms like that is to denigrate transwomen as being "not real women" or "men dressed like women". Its equivalent to habitually referring to mentally handicapped as "morons" simply because that used to be a clinical term 100 years ago.
I think raising awareness to be key. There are people who refer to transgender women as males out of malice and there are people who genuinely believe that gender is simply a genetic fact. I did not understand psychology and the complexity of gender identity. I was raised in a culture that did not inculcate me with facts about gender identity. Though I will hasten to concede that ignorance is not an excuse. Failing to treat another human being with dignity is always wrong and I understand the impatience one would feel. However, ignorance is curable. Now that I know the facts I can celebrate diversity and work to inform others and generally not be a tool.

I guess I'm saying have a little patience. Some of us are redeemable.
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?

Last edited by RandFan; 31st August 2011 at 08:42 AM.
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2011, 08:43 AM   #62
Lamuella
Master Poster
 
Lamuella's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,480
Originally Posted by DrDave View Post
Since men think about sex every 6 seconds make sure you eat that hot dog quickly else it'll feel awkward
you probably already know this, but the "men think about sex every six seconds" factoid isn't true:

http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/thinksex.asp

Last edited by Lamuella; 31st August 2011 at 08:48 AM. Reason: removed a piece of my own nonsense, added a link
Lamuella is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2011, 09:08 AM   #63
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 60,134
Originally Posted by DrDave View Post
Since men think about sex every 6 seconds make sure you eat that hot dog quickly else it'll feel awkward
Sometimes a hot dog is just a hot dog, then again, that's hot.
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2011, 09:12 AM   #64
sarge
Philosopher
 
sarge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Fayetteville, NC
Posts: 6,254
Originally Posted by Lamuella View Post
If someone's presenting as a particular gender, but you don't think their presented gender matches their sex, trying to be "technically accurate" is pretty much by definition rude. Your "accuracy" can come across as calling them a fraud.
I have already allowed that I understand that, while accurate, calling a transgender woman a "man" or "male" could easily be rude. I do not intend to give the impression that being technically accurate excuses being rude.



Quote:
easy mental checklist:

1) is this person intending to appear as a particular gender?
2) Which gender is this person intending to appear as?

If it's possible to answer these questions, then you refer to the person as the gender they are expressing.

I can understand there being circumstances where someone is either not intending to express a gender, or intending not to express a gender, or where you can't be clear what gender someone is expressing. Back in my university days, I had a friend called Andy. We were in the same drama society, went for a few of the same auditions, etc. Andy, either through choice or through my inability to pick up on such things, did not express a clear gender to me, through a mixture of fairly androgyne features and fairly neutral clothing. I think I'd known Andy a month before I found out that her name was short for "andrea" and she was female. I neither know not care whether Andy was biologically male or female because I wasn't trying to be romantically involved with her. It didn't particularly matter, and didn't really come up when we were talking because "you" and "I" are both genderless. Why would the supposed accuracy of a gender pronoun be of any significance?
Sigh.
__________________
My previous signature risked (unknowingly) violating the Hatch Act!
sarge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2011, 09:13 AM   #65
DrDave
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 4,300
Originally Posted by Lamuella View Post
you probably already know this, but the "men think about sex every six seconds" factoid isn't true:

http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/thinksex.asp
So I'm good to eat bananas again then - phew


DrDave is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2011, 09:22 AM   #66
I Ratant
Penultimate Amazing
 
I Ratant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 19,258
Originally Posted by Lamuella View Post
you probably already know this, but the "men think about sex every six seconds" factoid isn't true:

http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/thinksex.asp
.
I'd say it's false, sometimes I'm asleep.
I Ratant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2011, 09:27 AM   #67
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 12,196
My only thought is how many other instances of violence this individual was involved in on duty and off?

I doubt that this guy changed from solid officer to drunken shooter in one incident.
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2011, 09:49 AM   #68
DrDave
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 4,300
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
My only thought is how many other instances of violence this individual was involved in on duty and off?

I doubt that this guy changed from solid officer to drunken shooter in one incident.
There are 2 threads about this - from the other thread

Originally Posted by Babbylonian View Post
Those may just be the initial charges until the prosecutors put together everyone's stories.

Apparently, this isn't the first time this guy has had trouble holding his liquor.

One of the incidents from the above link:
DrDave is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2011, 10:25 AM   #69
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 46,753
Originally Posted by sarge View Post
I'm honestly confused by some of the explanations offered here.

If a person is genetically male and retains male gear, how is it inaccurate to call this person male? I get that it might be offensive, but I don't understand the argument that it is inaccurate. A man is a man until he isn't, then she is a woman.

It is reasonable for the average person, unfamiliar with the subject, to be confused, and it is not reasonable for a male undergoing a gender change to be offended if someone calls him a male - especially in the absence of an intent to offend.
It would not be inaccurate if one was talking physical sex or biological sex. But biology and other matters do not always agree. Is a sterile man still a man even if he can not reproduce? What about a man who had serious genital trauma but still thinks of himself as a man?

Biology can be weird and confusing as well look at intersexed people. A female athleate had her status as a woman questioned and it took months to definitively define her sex.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2011, 10:32 AM   #70
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sigil, the city of doors
Posts: 14,581
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Your response failed to grasp that I was not talking about trans people but the word gender. Linguistically genders do not all refer to people. Societies with multiple linguistic genders can have only two social genders. Of course there are plenty of societies that have more than two genders for people, india has started issuing three genders in passports.

But that has little to do with transgendered people because by the nature of most of them they accept social genders they just want to be recategorized.

All you are doing is coming across as a cultural chauvinist, which is odd for someone from a culture that thinks teapots breed.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk
You failed to grasp that that gender/sex things is NOT valid in french. There is only one word : sexe. There is only 2 "gender" : feminine and masculine, to use the words.
Aepervius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2011, 10:47 AM   #71
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 46,753
Originally Posted by Aepervius View Post
You failed to grasp that that gender/sex things is NOT valid in french. There is only one word : sexe. There is only 2 "gender" : feminine and masculine, to use the words.
And we are talking in english about language in general. I do have to wonder how the french determine the sex of new types of inanimate objects.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2011, 10:50 AM   #72
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 46,753
Originally Posted by sarge View Post
I have already allowed that I understand that, while accurate, calling a transgender woman a "man" or "male" could easily be rude. I do not intend to give the impression that being technically accurate excuses being rude.
Do you call Lance Armstrong a man or the biologically correct eunuch? He is not a man anymore after all.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2011, 10:55 AM   #73
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sigil, the city of doors
Posts: 14,581
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
And we are talking in english about language in general. I do have to wonder how the french determine the sex of new types of inanimate objects.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk
You may have been speaking of English, but in the original reply I did to you I was speaking of the french culture I grew with. It was pretty clear I was speaking about french and that such distinction you are making and cultural expansion, do not exists, cannot exists.

We don't even have an "it". We translate it with "on" or general forms.

How we do with new words ? I don't recall exactely but we might take the gender from the latin version/foreign version, or masculine as default.
Aepervius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2011, 11:26 AM   #74
sarge
Philosopher
 
sarge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Fayetteville, NC
Posts: 6,254
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Do you call Lance Armstrong a man or the biologically correct eunuch? He is not a man anymore after all.
Did Lance Armostrong suffer trauma or surgery removing his penis? Huh - I was unaware.

Of course, Armstrong is still male - and would still be male even if he wore a dress and believed himself to be a woman.

Calling Armstrong "testicularly challenged" would be accurate and might be rude - in exactly the same way that calling a pre-operative transgender biological "male" would be accurate and might be rude.

My argument is that someone born unambiguously male remains male until something besides their sense of themselves changes that.

By definition, Lance Armstrong is inarguably male. Lance may consider himself a woman. and I may choose not to offend by pointing out to Lance that he is inarguably male - but that choice does not affect the accuracy of calling Lance "male" (or, reasonably, a "man").

I would desire when dealing with someone that may have overwhelming female traits, and who presents himself as female, to treat the person as female. It would be the polite thing to do.
__________________
My previous signature risked (unknowingly) violating the Hatch Act!

Last edited by sarge; 31st August 2011 at 12:20 PM.
sarge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2011, 11:37 AM   #75
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 60,134
Originally Posted by sarge View Post
My argument is that someone born unambiguously male remains male until something besides their sense of themselves changes that.
So, I just want to understand, in your opinion the only essence of being male is biological? If so, I used to think that but not any more. I'm not even sure it has much meaning beyond sexual reproduction. I think my sense of my identity is paramount. If there is no pathology and if my sense isn't maladaptive why should anyone care? And I want to mace clear, I'm talking about an absence of pathology,
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2011, 02:49 PM   #76
Silly Green Monkey
Cowardly Lurking in the Shadows of Greatness
 
Silly Green Monkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Arizona
Posts: 4,666
Originally Posted by sarge View Post
According to who?

For most of us, "man" and "woman" are genders defined by the presence of the matching genitalia. A "man" has male genitalia and a "woman" has female genitalia - and it is perfectly accurate to use the terms "male" and "man" interchangably most of the time. I can understand that, for someone desiring to change the gender of birth, that such a description might be offensive, but I still don't understand how it is inaccurate.
You may not peek at my genitals. In the absence of Crocodile Dundee-style crotchgrabs on everyone you meet, how about not thinking about the genitals of everyone you casually meet?
Silly Green Monkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2011, 03:35 PM   #77
epepke
Philosopher
 
epepke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 9,264
Originally Posted by Lamuella View Post
if you're not going to have sex with a person, why do you care if they have or don't have "male gear"? Why would you even know what "gear" they have?
Use of bathrooms, perhaps?
__________________
"It probably came from a sticky dark planet far, far away."
- Godzilla versus Hedora

"There's no evidence that the 9-11 attacks (whoever did them) were deliberately attacking civilians. On the contrary the targets appear to have been chosen as military."
-DavidByron
epepke is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2011, 04:51 PM   #78
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 46,753
Originally Posted by sarge View Post
Did Lance Armostrong suffer trauma or surgery removing his penis? Huh - I was unaware.
Not the definition of a eunuch. He is by definition a eunuch not a man.
Quote:
Of course, Armstrong is still male - and would still be male even if he wore a dress and believed himself to be a woman.
But by language he is not a man and is a eunuch. The castration means he is not a man.
Quote:
Calling Armstrong "testicularly challenged" would be accurate and might be rude - in exactly the same way that calling a pre-operative transgender biological "male" would be accurate and might be rude.
At least here you are using a word in its correct sense in an unambiguous manner.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2011, 06:17 PM   #79
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 20,293
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Not the definition of a eunuch. He is by definition a eunuch not a man.


But by language he is not a man and is a eunuch. The castration means he is not a man.
Castration?

Originally Posted by wikipedia
On October 2, 1996, then aged 25, Armstrong was diagnosed as having developed stage three testicular cancer (Embryonal carcinoma).[7] The cancer spread to his lungs, abdomen and brain. On that first visit to a urologist in Austin, Texas, for his cancer symptoms he was coughing up blood and had a large, painful testicular tumor. Immediate surgery and chemotherapy were required to save his life. Armstrong had an orchiectomy to remove his diseased testicle. After his surgery, his doctor stated that he had less than a 40% survival chance.[8]
Originally Posted by wikipedia
Castration (also referred to as gelding, spaying, neutering, fixing, orchiectomy, oophorectomy) is any action, surgical, chemical, or otherwise, by which a male loses the functions of the testicles

...

In ancient times, castration often involved the total removal of all the male genitalia. This involved great danger of death due to bleeding or infection and, in some states, such as the Byzantine Empire, was seen as the same as a death sentence. Removal of only the testicles had much less risk.

Either surgical removal of both testicles or chemical castration may be carried out in the case of prostate cancer.[2] Testosterone-depletion treatment (either surgical removal of both testicles or chemical castration)
carlitos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2011, 06:21 PM   #80
I Ratant
Penultimate Amazing
 
I Ratant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 19,258
Originally Posted by epepke View Post
Use of bathrooms, perhaps?
.
I watched a young lady get tired of the long line into the women's restroom at the Mall, and go into the men's.
OK with me.
I Ratant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:50 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.