Students Are Pushing Back Against Gender Ideology In Their Schools

[Kfox]

It makes perfect sense, especially to a linguist like me. If you actually read the article and understood what it was trying to say, rather than use it to create the false impression that anyone at all thinks there are 81 different genders, then you ought to know that. The author is quite clear about this, so I don't know how you missed it. Most of the article is about gender classifications in individual foreign languages and cultures, not English or the culture in which this thread is embedded. It has nothing at all to do with pronouns. The object is just to show that, throughout history, human beings have constructed different ways to refer to gender, most of which do not conform to English usage. I suggest that we not stray off topic, although the article is an interesting result from research done by one education professor.

Even though the list does include some foreign and historical usages, most are references to current day English usages. I find it rather silly myself that's why I prefer to use biology rather than gender when referencing people; evidently there are countless genders but only 2 biological distinctions. Ya can't mis-gender someone if you don't reference their gender.

 

[Kfox]

109 from that link lol. But seems most are just different nicknames.

Yeah; and who decides those nick names? I find the whole thing rather silly myself; that's why I prefer referencing biology instead of gender when referring to someone, there are only 2 biological distinctions but evidently countless gender distinctions.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Yeah; and who decides those nick names? I find the whole thing rather silly myself; that's why I prefer referencing biology instead of gender when referring to someone, there are only 2 biological distinctions but evidently countless gender distinctions.

So you have to investigate someone's biology before you use any pronouns for them?

 

[Shaul]

It's not an objective definition because nature did not give us something black and white. There's many genetic variations and conditions that confuse things and even flip conventions entirely around.
And it's not objective as a strict female/male dichotomy are not universally found. If it were that concrete and definite we would find this as universal as several facial expressions that are recognized by people throughout all cultures and times.

Yes, it certainly is an objective definition. A person either has a Y chromosome or the person doesn't. It isn't ambiguous. Sorry not sorry that the objective facts are inconvenient to your wishes.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Yes, it certainly is an objective definition.

There is no such thing as an "objective definition".

A person either has a Y chromosome or the person doesn't.

Actually, no. There are biological women who have XY chromosomes, such as when they have Swyer syndrome.

It isn't ambiguous.

Actually, it is. Have you ever investigated a person's chromosomes, personally?

Sorry not sorry that the objective facts are inconvenient to your wishes.

You haven't presented any objective facts. You've just used an arbitrary label and attached it to a biological characteristic that you don't fully understand.

 

[Shaul]

There is no such thing as an "objective definition".

So you are stating an objective definition that there is no such thing as an objective definition. And you don't even see the paradox and irony. Hilarious!

Actually, no. There are biological women who have XY chromosomes, such as when they have Swyer syndrome.n

By definition those are males. Males who happen to have a Swyer syndrome. All you are doing is substituting one objective definition for another. All the while criticizing using objective definition.

Definition of Y CHROMOSOME

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Yes, it certainly is an objective definition. A person either has a Y chromosome or the person doesn't. It isn't ambiguous. Sorry not sorry that the objective facts are inconvenient to your wishes.

Yeah, it is ambigious as sometime there are XY women. Nature didn't give us black amd white.

By definition those are males. Males who happen to have a Swyer syndrome.

No, you're just being rude. This is something you CANNOT ever know about someone unless it is disclosed to you (with your attitude I doubt that happens), especially as these women themselves often don't know and can never know until they've been tested.

 

[Shaul]

Yeah, it is ambigious as sometime there are XY women. Nature didn't give us black amd white.

No, there are males that appear to be women. A male is a person that has a Y chromosome. And nature does give us "black and white".

No, you're just being rude. This is something you CANNOT ever know about someone unless it is disclosed to you (with your attitude I doubt that happens), especially as these women themselves often don't know and can never know until they've been tested.

Calling me rude doesn't change the facts. A person with a Y chromosome has a Y chromosome. All the "wanting" in the world doesn't change objective facts. But I forgive you. I understand that what you are really upset about is that the facts don't support your misguided, heartfelt desire. Facts are stubborn things. You will get over it.

 

[Revoltingest]

No, there are males that appear to be women. A male is a person that has a Y chromosome. And nature does give us "black and white".

The alternative to black & white categorization is to
see sex/gender as a spectrum. It's more useful because
it appears to be a better reflection of reality, & helps
avoid atypical individuals being treated poorly.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

The alternative to black & white categorization is to
see sex/gender as a spectrum. It's more useful because
it appears to be a better reflection of reality, & helps
avoid atypical individuals being treated poorly.

Exactly. Obviously it's a bit more complicated and can't be just reduced to chromosomes or genitals. It also completely ignores the impact of hormones.

 

[Revoltingest]

Exactly. Obviously it's a bit more complicated and can't be just reduced to chromosomes or genitals. It also completely ignores the impact of hormones.

The complicated aspects are above my pay grade.
But the spectrum approach is understandable &
far better than the simplistic male, female, &
nuthin else approach.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I foresee this trend growing larger.

"Students at a Massachusetts middle school showed their opposition to Pride month by chanting, “USA Are My Pronouns,” through the school halls and wore red, white, and blue clothing and face paint."......

"The growing trend goes back as far as 2021, when a 15-year-old went viral for a speech ripping into his school board for critical race theory-infused teachings in their curriculum.".....

"High school students in Ottawa, Canada, are also staging a walkout to protest what they saw as inappropriate content in their curriculums"....

MSN

USA are my pronouns? Yikes, sounds like they should be paying closer attention in English class.

 

[Revoltingest]

USA are my pronouns? Yikes, sounds like they should be paying closer attention in English class.

Sometimes I'm thinking one thing when
I begin a sentence, & then I'm thinking
something else by the end. If I'm lucky,
I see the problem right away, & correct it.

 

[Copernicus]

Even though the list does include some foreign and historical usages, most are references to current day English usages. I find it rather silly myself that's why I prefer to use biology rather than gender when referencing people; evidently there are countless genders but only 2 biological distinctions. Ya can't mis-gender someone if you don't reference their gender.

I don't know how much biology you've studied, but I think you've got it backwards. The biology can be much more complicated than you think, and people actually depend more on phenotypic than genotypic characteristics to define social groups. That is, superficial characteristics are more important in categorization than underlying biology, which itself can be ambiguous.

Linguistically, it also gets complicated, because there is a difference between grammatical and semantic gender. English tends to rely largely on semantic gender, but many languages make grammatical distinctions between male, female, and neuter nouns. (For example, "the moon" in French is feminine la lune but masculine der Mond in German.) Worse yet, masculine and feminine nouns can be at odds with semantic gender. So the word for "man" in Polish is feminine mężczyzna, but you have to use masculine adjectives and pronouns to modify or refer to it.

Gender reference in English is much simpler semantically, since we don't have gender classes for nouns, but pronominal reference is a grammatical feature of the language. Hence, plural third person pronouns like they can be occasionally be used for semantic singular reference under certain circumstances.

In summary, pronoun reference is quirky in most languages, and it is far from being objectively biological, as you and @Shaul have been claiming. Speakers of a language develop conventions of usage, and those can change over time, especially when cultural and social conditions change.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

First off, there is a growing contingent of "L"'s who want nothing to do with trans-activism.

Second supporting trans PEOPLE is NOT the same as supporting trans-activism. As far as I know, the "trans community" has not voted on whether the IDEAS of trans-activists are what they want to support.

"Maybe the trans community wants acceptance, maybe they want to not be able to pee when they're out at the mall. Who's to say?"

 

[SkepticThinker]

No; the anti-trans crowd is saying you can call yourself anything you want, but you have no right to demand I call you whatever it is you want to be called.

I have a question about this that I've been wondering for a while now ...
How do you determine that the person you are talking to, doesn't actually fit the pronouns they're asking to be called? Do you check everyone's genitals upon being introduced?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Calling cutting off a child's genitals a "medical treatment" is sick.

That's not what's being done.
Gender affirming care saves lives and it involves a whole lot more than lopping off kids genitals. Congrats, you've bought into the Fox News BS narrative.

They are demanding others use a pronoun of their choosing. Which they have no right to do.

Whoa, people don't have a right to be called by their preferred name/pronoun? You know better than they do what they should be called?

 

[SkepticThinker]

So you are stating an objective definition that there is no such thing as an objective definition. And you don't even see the paradox and irony. Hilarious!

By definition those are males. Males who happen to have a Swyer syndrome. All you are doing is substituting one objective definition for another. All the while criticizing using objective definition.

Definition of Y CHROMOSOME

The point seems to be that biology isn't as clear-cut, black-and-white as you want it to be.
In reality, it's much fuzzier and more messy than you want it to be. And that's before gender even enters the equation.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

No, there are males that appear to be women. A male is a person that has a Y chromosome. And nature does give us "black and white".

Calling me rude doesn't change the facts. A person with a Y chromosome has a Y chromosome. All the "wanting" in the world doesn't change objective facts. But I forgive you. I understand that what you are really upset about is that the facts don't support your misguided, heartfelt desire. Facts are stubborn things. You will get over it.

So by that logic you are only half the man as those who are XYY. XYYY? They're three times the man you can ever hope to be.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Exactly. Obviously it's a bit more complicated and can't be just reduced to chromosomes or genitals. It also completely ignores the impact of hormones.

Yup. And not too mention all the variations and inbetween. Like women with an adams apple and men without one.