"Her penis" - not at all Orwellian - argh

[SkepticThinker]

So again, are you speaking for all women?

Here's what I said: "I said the sites you are drawing this stuff from are fear mongering."

Please tell me how you've interpreted that to mean I think I'm speaking for all women.

By the way, aren't you always complaining about other people putting words in your mouth? Hmmm

Because I'm reading about and listening to real women whose rights are being abused. So do those women's feelings count, or is it just the feelings of trans people that you care about?

What you're doing is posting unsubstantiated anecdotes from anti-trans sites that engage in fear mongering.

sigh.. Okay, you're correct, included in the many questions I asked you, there was this one rhetorical question. If you care about women and confused GD kids I would hope you wouldn't play such silly "gotcha" debating games and try to discuss this is good faith.

You were playing the gotcha. I just called you on it.

In what way? And this is not rhetorical. The links I've provided are loaded with falsifiable, factual claims. In what way do these links leave much to be desired?

See above.

Of course not. But I'm specifically talking about those women who do not want to be treated by male doctors, for example for standard physical exams or perhaps for ob/gyn visits. Some women are modest, or they might have religious beliefs that run counter to being seen by a biological male doctor. Do the rights of those women count, or again, if an intact trans woman doctor wants to do those exams, are those doctor's feelings more important than the patient's feelings?

Everyone should obviously have a choice over which doctor they'd like to have. I don't know how this changes with the inclusion of trans people.

Is there something in the US that doesn't allow people to choose their own doctor? I have full choice of whomever I like, here in Canada.

Yes, when we're talking about pronouns, we're talking about when the person being discussed is not present. right?

Not at all. I think that in this part of the conversation we're talking about pronouns, correct?

If so, we use pronouns when discussing people who are not present, correct?

What difference does it make if the person is present or not? Why are we referring to people differently just because they aren't in our direct and immediate vicinity?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I don't know for sure your preferences, but I suspect you'd call yourself something like "progressive left"?

What does that have to do with anything at all?

Many progressives these days think being "inclusive" is more important than free speech. I consider myself to be "center left", and I think free speech is perhaps the most important aspect of civil society.

Ah I see. You wanted to me some broad generalizations about me.

I don't see why being inclusive has to have any sort of negative affect on free speech.

So if I've understood you correctly, we'll have to agree to disagree on this point.

I realize you don't believe this is an overreaction.

No, listing one's pronouns is a new phenomenon.

Not really. Pronouns have always been a part of speech. We've always referred to people as they've asked to be referred to - or at least, decent people have.

I'm all for affording dignity and respect. But that cuts both ways. The current "progressive" approach puts respecting trans people ahead of respecting women. It puts women at risk. It's zero-sum.

I don't think it does.

A few posts back I proposed a win-win approach, what's wrong with that?

This?

"That said, I think a non-zero-sum compromise (i.e. win-win), would be to agree to a SINGLE SET of pronouns for trans people, or perhaps a set for trans men and a different set for trans women. But it's crucial that they are clearly distinct from the existing pronouns. There should be zero linguistic confusion about the biological sex of the person being referred. And, for the sake of trans people, pronouns dedicated to them ought to quell any concerns about how a lack of pronouns would threaten their very existence (ffs)."

I think this is unnecessary.
When have we ever demanded to know a person's biological sex before referring to them as they've requested, like ever???

 

[icehorse]

What you're doing is posting unsubstantiated anecdotes from anti-trans sites that engage in fear mongering.

How do you know that? How on earth could you know that?

And again, I've provided links to articles and videos that make long lists of falsifiable, factual claims. For example the link below is an interview with Dr. Riittakerttu Kaltiala, a psychiatrist for adolescents who oversees Finland's gender identity service for minors. As I've been saying, this article is filled with falsifiable, factual claims. This is not fear mongering. It's also not anti-trans, it's pro-children.

‘Gender-Affirming Care Is Dangerous. I Know Because I Helped Pioneer It.’

Everyone should obviously have a choice over which doctor they'd like to have. I don't know how this changes with the inclusion of trans people.

Is there something in the US that doesn't allow people to choose their own doctor? I have full choice of whomever I like, here in Canada.

You'd think, wouldn't you? But no, trans women doctors whine about "trans phobia" if a woman does not want them to be their doctors.

And relatedly, trans women whine about lesbians who won't date them. Do you agree that often a lesbian that won't date trans women is "outed" as being a TERF?

What difference does it make if the person is present or not? Why are we referring to people differently just because they aren't in our direct and immediate vicinity?

Because grammar?

When a person is present you use their name. When they're not, you might use a pronoun, correct?

 

[icehorse]

think this is unnecessary.
When have we ever demanded to know a person's biological sex before referring to them as they've requested, like ever???

Well many, many women disagree with you.

The world is changing rapidly. There is an explosion of people identifying as trans. There are new laws that allow people to legally identify as the opposite gender at the drop of a hat. Between conviction and sentencing, many convicts are identifying as "women" so that they will be put into women's prisons - guess what happens next? (doh!)

Sometimes sex matters, sometimes it's life and death, and the same goes for pronouns.

Why don't you care about the women who are being abused by bad men who are taking advantage of this relatively new pronoun stuff?

That's not rhetorical - why do you seem NOT to care about these women?

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

why do you seem NOT to care about these women?

Do you care about these kind of women? Or are you just using them as a platitude to excuse blatant hatred and bigotry?

 

[icehorse]

Do you care about these kind of women? Or are you just using them as a platitude to excuse blatant hatred and bigotry?

I care about everyone. But I do not care about trans people MORE than I care about women.

Can you tell me where you see hatred and/or bigotry in my posts?

To be clear, my complaints focus on the behaviors of trans activists, and I don't think they speak for trans people, I think these activists have political agendas.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Can you tell me where you see hatred and/or bigotry in my posts?

The many times you reject and deny someone's being because you think it's a political stunt or agenda. It amazes me when and how people of your line of thinking claim to care about the very people they're victimizing, while also completely rejecting everything about them because they're more preoccupied with what's in their pants.

 

[icehorse]

The many times you reject and deny someone's being because you think it's a political stunt or agenda. It amazes me when and how people of your line of thinking claim to care about the very people they're victimizing, while also completely rejecting everything about them because they're more preoccupied with what's in their pants.

How have I denied anyone's being?

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

How have I denied anyone's being?

That's odd... I could have sworn your username was "icehorse", not "sealion".

 

[icehorse]

That's odd... I could have sworn your username was "icehorse", not "sealion".

I'm asking you to support YOUR claim that I've somehow tried to deny anyone their existence.

Why is that? Because I've proposed that trans people get their own distinct pronouns?? Oh noes!

 

[Alien826]

The main issues I have with trans activists are:

1 - Inflicting (and I use that word deliberately), GAC on kids with GD.
2 - Demanding that society lie about biological sex.

OK, I'll just say that i don't have a firm opinion on #1 because I know very little about it and the current "noise level" doesn't help me in learning about it.

This thread is about #2 on the list, and I'm close to being (not quite), a free speech absolutist. For sure I don't think we should budge an inch in terms of relinquishing whatever degree of free speech we have.

So let's stick to #2.

So demanding that we lie in our use of pronouns is a variation on diminishing free speech. It is approaching the terrifying prospect of compelled speech, and there have been cases where people have gotten into a lot of trouble because they would not agree to lying about biological pronouns.

Emotionally I agree with you as I was an English major and have been strongly indoctrinated with what is 'right" and "wrong" in spelling, grammar and correct usage of words. I still grit my teeth when I hear stuff in advertising where nouns are turned into verbs ("how do you cashback?"). As I've aged though I realized more and more that a lot of this is just my personal preference and it probably doesn't matter how you say something so long as it is understandable to the listener. And language changes, whether we like it or not. Does anyone care about splitting infinitives any more?

I strongly disagree with (for example) college professors being fired because they use a particular word, assuming that's the only reason. My position would be to let everyone say what they want to say (with the usual exceptions) in whatever way they want and let it sort itself out. That means that if someone wants to pressure me into a certain way of speaking they have the right to do so, and I have the right to ignore them.

Incidentally, I don't see it as lying when a person refers to a trans woman as "she". It's more a reflection of a change in the meaning of the word.

That said, I think a non-zero-sum compromise (i.e. win-win), would be to agree to a SINGLE SET of pronouns for trans people, or perhaps a set for trans men and a different set for trans women. But it's crucial that they are clearly distinct from the existing pronouns. There should be zero linguistic confusion about the biological sex of the person being referred. And, for the sake of trans people, pronouns dedicated to them ought to quell any concerns about how a lack of pronouns would threaten their very existence (ffs).



Probably explained above but, yes I agree with your zero-sum definition. And I think the example I gave above might be an example of a win-win, in other words non-zero-sum.

The problem is that English lacks gender neutral pronouns for all cases. Attempts to get round it without inventing new words are dubious at best (I still wince when a poster is referred to as "they" and I have adjust my first understanding that the subject is plural). What you are suggesting I think is the invention of some new words. But how do you get them to be universally used without committing the incursion into free speech you decry? What if I exercise my right to free speech and refuse to use them? That's actually happened, as there have been some new words invented that didn't catch on. I'd guess the reason for that is split between "too much hard work to learn it" and "don't tell me how to speak".

Would it be "win-win" if it happened though? The trans people would gain some pronouns but what would be the gain to the rest of us? I'll have to think about it.

 

[Alien826]

If so, we use pronouns when discussing people who are not present, correct?

From one picky person to another, not necessarily.

You would be referring to someone in the third person, but they could be present.

 

[icehorse]

The problem is that English lacks gender neutral pronouns for all cases. Attempts to get round it without inventing new words are dubious at best (I still wince when a poster is referred to as "they" and I have adjust my first understanding that the subject is plural). What you are suggesting I think is the invention of some new words. But how do you get them to be universally used without committing the incursion into free speech you decry? What if I exercise my right to free speech and refuse to use them? That's actually happened, as there have been some new words invented that didn't catch on. I'd guess the reason for that is split between "too much hard work to learn it" and "don't tell me how to speak".

Again, thanks for your thoughtful reply.

The people who champion gender ideology have already created hundreds, literally hundreds, of new words to label the ever increasing ways in which some people want to label the sexual aspect of their personality. My proposal is to reduce that list of hundreds down to a manageable few.

As an aside, I'm often told that language evolves, which of course is true. But apart from the gender ideologists, it tends to evolve without threat. If someone misuses the term "selfie", they're not going to get sued or fired. But if you "misgender" someone, those risks are real

 

[icehorse]

From one picky person to another, not necessarily.

You would be referring to someone in the third person, but they could be present.

agreed!

So back to the rape victim and rapist in the courtroom scenario: Yes, the rapist is in the room. But we still have the rapist's overzealous lawyer badgering and humiliating the victim into saying such nonsensical sentences as "SHE raped me with HER penis".

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

I'm asking you to support YOUR claim that I've somehow tried to deny anyone their existence.

Look at the very title of your thread.

 

[icehorse]

Look at the very title of your thread.

To reiterate, I've proposed creating distinct pronouns, exclusively for trans people. For the sake of discussion, let's say we agree that the pronouns for trans women should be "zee" and "zer".

Then the phrase "zer penis" is not misleading, nor is it a lie. Everyone understands that the phrase is referring to a trans woman who is still an intact biological male. No confusion. No denial of anything, just the truth.

 

[SkepticThinker]

How do you know that? How on earth could you know that?

And again, I've provided links to articles and videos that make long lists of falsifiable, factual claims. For example the link below is an interview with Dr. Riittakerttu Kaltiala, a psychiatrist for adolescents who oversees Finland's gender identity service for minors. As I've been saying, this article is filled with falsifiable, factual claims. This is not fear mongering. It's also not anti-trans, it's pro-children.

‘Gender-Affirming Care Is Dangerous. I Know Because I Helped Pioneer It.’

You seem to have lost the plot here.

We were talking about your "real life" examples of women being harmed by trans-related things.

These were your examples, if you remember:

"- Male convicts are claiming to be trans, being put in women's prisons, and then assaulting female prisoners.
- Biological males are demanding that they be allowed to attend lesbian only events, shutting these events down when they don't get their way, and attempting to "cancel" women who disagree with their demands.
- Women who want same-sex health care are having biological males - most of whom are intact - foist upon them, and being criticized if they refuse to receive healthcare from these men.
- In courtrooms, victims of rape are made to say idiotic phrases like "she raped me with her penis". Apparently not hurting the feelings of the rapist has become more important than the dignity of the victim?"

You'd think, wouldn't you? But no, trans women doctors whine about "trans phobia" if a woman does not want them to be their doctors.

Do they? Don't tell me you're speaking on behalf of all "trans women doctors!"

And relatedly, trans women whine about lesbians who won't date them. Do you agree that often a lesbian that won't date trans women is "outed" as being a TERF?

Is this a widespread problem or an anecdote?

Because grammar?

When a person is present you use their name. When they're not, you might use a pronoun, correct?

You could use either their name or pronoun in their presence or not in their presence.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

To reiterate, I've proposed creating distinct pronouns, exclusively for trans people.

And I'm sure it was pointed out to you that such is not your place nor a viable solution for you to label people other than how they label themselves.

Your conflation of sex and gender doesn't provide a solid rationale for this. As well, never minding that some people do chose to go by "zir", yet this does not invalidate a woman that simply cannot afford or want to undergo bottom surgery.

Biology is a funny thing, and it is not binary.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Well many, many women disagree with you.

Do they? I wonder if they'd agree with my point that we don't check everyone's genitalia before deciding what we should refer to them as.

The world is changing rapidly. There is an explosion of people identifying as trans. There are new laws that allow people to legally identify as the opposite gender at the drop of a hat.

At the drop of a hat? Nah.

Between conviction and sentencing, many convicts are identifying as "women" so that they will be put into women's prisons - guess what happens next? (doh!)

That's your claim.

Sometimes sex matters, sometimes it's life and death, and the same goes for pronouns.

You've not shown any life and death situations related to pronoun usage.

Why don't you care about the women who are being abused by bad men who are taking advantage of this relatively new pronoun stuff?

Perhaps I would if you'd manage to demonstrate that this is some sort of widespread problem.

That's not rhetorical - why do you seem NOT to care about these women?

I love when someone repeatedly tries telling me I don't care about women being harmed because I don't buy into their demonization of a minority group. Funny stuff.

 

[icehorse]

You seem to have lost the plot here.

We were talking about your "real life" examples of women being harmed by trans-related things.

These were your examples, if you remember:

Isn't it accurate to say we have several threads of conversation going on in parallel?

Do they? Don't tell me you're speaking on behalf of all "trans women doctors!"

I didn't say that they all do, of course not. But again, sometimes a trans woman health care provider makes an issue of a woman who doesn't want "zer" help. How many women patients are you willing to have abused in such a way?

Is this a widespread problem or an anecdote?

Those are subjective terms. How many lesbians are you willing to have abused in this way?