• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Transphobia

Kfox

Well-Known Member
Are we more advanced than you guys?
I don’t know if I would wanna call new and innovative ways of crazy…… advanced; if I were you.
Well, yeah.
I have eyes, don’t you know?
The reason your politeness argument doesn’t work is because they don’t just want you to just pretend out of politeness, they want you to believe they are who they say they are.
It’s also not a big deal if someone wants you to call them she, he, her, Xi etc.
Like honestly tell me. What skin off your nose does it cost you? Does it physically hurt you to call someone by their preferred pronoun?
The only pronoun I use when talking to you is “you” or your”. I only use he, her, xi, etc if I am talking ABOUT you to someone else; at which time you are not a part of the conversation; that's the way the English language works. So what skin off your nose is it for you to mind your own darn business?
But whatever. You can tell that to Jesus next time you meet him. Say hi from me
I’m not a Christian so I have my own ethics I’m supposed to live by :shrug:
If you aren’t Christian, why would you ask me to say hi to a God you don’t believe in? Is this another new and innovative way of crazy?
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
The article gave an example of he/she in reference to gender as applied to humans; but it did not claim he/she is limited to gender now that gender has been redefined.
I already showed that gender was not redefined. It never referred to biology.

It also gave an example of non-human animals in reference to a portion of biology known as sex, but did not claim this only applies to non-human animals as you are trying to claim.
I'm not going to explain again to you why a specifying a particular usage is for non-human animals doesn't apply to humans.

IMO the article was not a very good one because it left a lot of questions unanswered.
So you're wrong about the concept of gender being redefined and you're wrong about he/she pronouns being dependent on sex.

What else have you got?
 
Whilst I can certainly agree with you. Politeness is a two way street, certainly

I haven’t seen much in the way of folks asking for more than preferred pronouns.

All I can see is people complaining that they have to use a few extra pronouns for people. As if it’s the end of the world and that it’s some sort of evidence that the human race is doomed or whatever

I've never met anyone who even requested "they", only to change she for he and vice versa.

It's no big deal, just a bit pretentious and conceited to expect others to use bespoke pronouns.

If a celeb demands staff don't look them in the eye it's not the end of the world either, just a bit pretentious and conceited.

Which strikes me as rather rude and quite pathetic, honestly.

If I’m wrong about that, then I do certainly apologise.
Truth be told I couldn’t care less outside of such discussions. And even then I wonder how much I truly care

Someone wants me to refer to them as Xer?
Does it hurt me? Does it cost me my bourbon?
If not, why the hell should I give a damn?

If someone wants people to salute and quickly dance the hucklebuck it doesn't hurt to humour them either, but many people would see the expectation as a bit presumptuous and the reluctance to go along as quite reasonable.

Hypothetically, if even a few % of people started using bespoke pronouns including irregular combinations of them it would make communication a fair bit more awkward.

There is a good case that expecting to be accommodated to this extent this is more rude than people being not wanting to use terms like wer/fae/xyrs

I only do so, because I do not wish to appear rude. In either respective scenario. And indeed these rules change based on nothing more than needing to address my elders who are Indian vs my elders who are Australian.
Does this change hurt me? It does require a certain level of effort on my part and indeed I have to translate such scenarios through two very different cultural lenses
Even accounting for cross over, since my family is mixed race.
If I can do this from a very young age even. I have to ask
What excuse can an adult offer for not even doing the bare minimum for just their own cultural politeness. So to speak?

Having lived in quite a few countries, I understand the need to adapt your behaviour to conform to cultural expectations, even when it goes against your natural instincts.

General cultural rules tend to be quite standard though and intuitive once you know them.

Pronouns beyond visually recognising a he/she have to be learned on an individual basis as you can't tell a xe from a fae from an ey.

With he/she/they it's easy enough to adapt to someone's preferences once they are brought to your attention, and people certainly should do this imo.

If my work told me I needed to use bespoke pronouns beyond these on request I would try my best to get them right and wouldn't cry about it, I'd just think the person requesting them in a formal situation was a bit of a bellend.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
I've never met anyone who even requested "they", only to change she for he and vice versa.

It's no big deal, just a bit pretentious and conceited to expect others to use bespoke pronouns.

If a celeb demands staff don't look them in the eye it's not the end of the world either, just a bit pretentious and conceited.



If someone wants people to salute and quickly dance the hucklebuck it doesn't hurt to humour them either, but many people would see the expectation as a bit presumptuous and the reluctance to go along as quite reasonable.

Hypothetically, if even a few % of people started using bespoke pronouns including irregular combinations of them it would make communication a fair bit more awkward.

There is a good case that expecting to be accommodated to this extent this is more rude than people being not wanting to use terms like wer/fae/xyrs



Having lived in quite a few countries, I understand the need to adapt your behaviour to conform to cultural expectations, even when it goes against your natural instincts.

General cultural rules tend to be quite standard though and intuitive once you know them.

Pronouns beyond visually recognising a he/she have to be learned on an individual basis as you can't tell a xe from a fae from an ey.

With he/she/they it's easy enough to adapt to someone's preferences once they are brought to your attention, and people certainly should do this imo.

If my work told me I needed to use bespoke pronouns beyond these on request I would try my best to get them right and wouldn't cry about it, I'd just think the person requesting them in a formal situation was a bit of a bellend.
Too true, squire. :)
 

Kfox

Well-Known Member
I already showed that gender was not redefined. It never referred to biology.
This article disagrees with you. In the first paragraph it says

In the mid-20th century, a terminological distinction in modern English (known as the sex and gender distinction) between biological sex and gender began to develop in the academic areas of psychology, sexology, and feminism

I'm not going to explain again to you why a specifying a particular usage is for non-human animals doesn't apply to humans.
Thank-you! Because all you are doing is making empty claims without presenting outside sources to back it up. Again; he/she applies to human biology as well as gender when it comes to everyday english language. If you disagree present an outside source that actually address my claim.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
This article disagrees with you. In the first paragraph it says

In the mid-20th century, a terminological distinction in modern English (known as the sex and gender distinction) between biological sex and gender began to develop in the academic areas of psychology, sexology, and feminism

Selectively quoting from sources is dishonest. The immediate next sentence says (emphasis mine):

"Before the mid-20th century, it was uncommon to use the word gender to refer to anything but grammatical categories."

I said this earlier, explicitly. Remember, your earlier claim was that "a few years ago Gender and Biology meant the same thing". They didn't. Neither a few years ago, nor a few decades ago. Gender only ever started to be applied to people in the mid-twentieth century and dovetailed almost immediately into a distinct social category.

Gender has never been just another word for sex. You were wrong.

Thank-you! Because all you are doing is making empty claims without presenting outside sources to back it up.
I've presented sources. You haven't.

Again; he/she applies to human biology as well as gender when it comes to everyday english language. If you disagree present an outside source that actually address my claim.
I'm not going in circles with you any more.

What else do you have?
 
Last edited:

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
I was at a medical clinic a few months back, and when filling out the paperwork, one of the questions was if I had any particular pronouns they need to know about. Really? As if I can just choose to have my own pronouns? I responded that I do not have pronouns, but I do have my own adjectives; and my adjectives were "brilliant" and "handsome". The lady I handed the paperwork to did not take very well to my responses and refused to address me according to my adjectives. Was she being irrational and deliberately rude?
You were asked for pronouns and gave adjectives instead. How is someone supposed to respond to that? You would have failed a fifth grade English class.
I mean, her question was basically "how should people address you and refer to you?" which to me, isn't a rude question in the slightest. Quite the opposite, in fact. And you gave a flippant response.

Pronouns are simply are part of grammar. I often think it's strange when people want to claim they don't use them or "have" them. Okay, so we have no way of addressing\referring you at all then? Weird.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
"How hard as its for people to mind their business and leave others alone"

Its actually pretty easy. However when a guy who identifies as woman(but still has their biological male parts they were born with) wants to use the girls bathroom and play in girls sports, that person is making their business everyone's business.
Never in all my 43 years on this planet have I ever seen any genitals in any bathroom anywhere. Including in co-ed bathrooms. And in men's rooms, on occasion, which I have also used in emergencies. I could have been peeing next to a bunch of penises in the stalls next to me for all this time and I would never have had any idea whatsoever. I don't think this is the huge problem people seem to want to make it out to be. Especially given that I'm pretty sure everyone has just been using the bathroom of their choice for all this time anyway, without issue.
 

Kfox

Well-Known Member
Selectively quoting from sources is dishonest. The immediate next sentence says (emphasis mine):

"Before the mid-20th century, it was uncommon to use the word gender to refer to anything but grammatical categories."

I said this earlier, explicitly. Remember, your earlier claim was that "a few years ago Gender and Biology meant the same thing". They didn't. Neither a few years ago, nor a few decades ago. Gender only ever started to be applied to people in the mid-twentieth century and dovetailed almost immediately into a distinct social category.

Gender has never been just another word for sex. You were wrong.
Before I respond, there is something I’m not quite getting here; how could a terminological distinction develop between biological sex and gender , unless gender and biological sex were indistinguishable? What am I missing here?
 

Kfox

Well-Known Member
You were asked for pronouns and gave adjectives instead. How is someone supposed to respond to that?
Recognize my adjectives, and address me according to them.
You would have failed a fifth grade English class.
Why?
I mean, her question was basically "how should people address you and refer to you?"
Address me the same way you address anybody else! You or your; those are the only adjectives you use when taking to someone. He, she, Xe, Ci; those may be used when talking about someone else, but if you are talking to me, you only use the pronouns you or your
which to me, isn't a rude question in the slightest.
I never said it was rude.
Quite the opposite, in fact. And you gave a flippant response.
Why do you say my response was flippant?

Okay, so we have no way of addressing\referring you at all then? Weird.
As I said before, “you” or your; same as when you speak with anybody else.
 

We Never Know

No Slack
Never in all my 43 years on this planet have I ever seen any genitals in any bathroom anywhere. Including in co-ed bathrooms. And in men's rooms, on occasion, which I have also used in emergencies. I could have been peeing next to a bunch of penises in the stalls next to me for all this time and I would never have had any idea whatsoever. I don't think this is the huge problem people seem to want to make it out to be. Especially given that I'm pretty sure everyone has just been using the bathroom of their choice for all this time anyway, without issue.

Its is/has been all in the news about transgender females wanting to be in female sports and wanting to use female bathrooms. They take and make it public by pushing for those things.

Aerosmith wrote this song 36 years ago for today's world lol

 
Last edited:

Kfox

Well-Known Member
Never in all my 43 years on this planet have I ever seen any genitals in any bathroom anywhere. Including in co-ed bathrooms. And in men's rooms, on occasion, which I have also used in emergencies. I could have been peeing next to a bunch of penises in the stalls next to me for all this time and I would never have had any idea whatsoever. I don't think this is the huge problem people seem to want to make it out to be. Especially given that I'm pretty sure everyone has just been using the bathroom of their choice for all this time anyway, without issue.
I think the main problem is in locker room facilities; like gyms, or public swimming pools. There, to have lady parts in the mens locker room, will cause you to stand out.
 

We Never Know

No Slack
I think the main problem is in locker room facilities; like gyms, or public swimming pools. There, to have lady parts in the mens locker room, will cause you to stand out.
"to have lady parts in the mens locker room, will cause you to stand out"

Yeah to have man parts in a lady's locker room would go unnoticed
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
Before I respond, there is something I’m not quite getting here; how could a terminological distinction develop between biological sex and gender , unless gender and biological sex were indistinguishable? What am I missing here?
A distinction between two things can form, even if previously you hadn't used those words indistinguishably. In this case, we started to use the word "gender" to DISTINGUISH between biological sex and the sociological phenomenon that we CALLED gender.

This is not difficult to understand.
 

Kfox

Well-Known Member
A distinction between two things can form, even if previously you hadn't used those words indistinguishably.
How? How does a distinction form when the distinction already exists?
In this case, we started to use the word "gender" to DISTINGUISH between biological sex and the sociological phenomenon that we CALLED gender.
99.9% of the people speaking English are not linguists, so whether they were using the term out of context or not is another discussion; but people have always used gender in reference to biological sex; which is why he/she is applied to animals as well; and before you say it, nobody has had the understanding that gender only refers to biology when referring to non-human animals only.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
How? How does a distinction form when the distinction already exists?

99.9% of the people speaking English are not linguists, so whether they were using the term out of context or not is another discussion; but people have always used gender in reference to biological sex; which is why he/she is applied to animals as well; and before you say it, nobody has had the understanding that gender only refers to biology when referring to non-human animals only.

Because the distinction is just done as per automatic cognition and not noticed as per meta-cognition. It is psychology, but the joke is that all people don't have the same cognition. So a person with automatic cognition understand cognition differently than a person with meta-cognition.
 

Kfox

Well-Known Member
Because the distinction is just done as per automatic cognition and not noticed as per meta-cognition. It is psychology, but the joke is that all people don't have the same cognition. So a person with automatic cognition understand cognition differently than a person with meta-cognition.
So for most such a distinction never took place?
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
How? How does a distinction form when the distinction already exists?
"There is a biological phenomenon called sex, but I noticed there are also social and societal aspects attached to this concept that are not dependent on biology. Gee, I sure wish we had a word to distinguish between biological sex and the social concepts that we tend to associate with it but are unrelated to biology. Oh, it appears that there is this word called "gender" which is used for linguistic difference between "masculine" and "feminine" words. What if we use the word gender to refer to the aforementioned sociological distinction? That seems like a good idea."

Thus, a distinction is made.

99.9% of the people speaking English are not linguists, so whether they were using the term out of context or not is another discussion; but people have always used gender in reference to biological sex; which is why he/she is applied to animals as well; and before you say it, nobody has had the understanding that gender only refers to biology when referring to non-human animals only.
Now you're just being silly. The meaning of the word never changed even if people used it inaccurately, and gender has specifically referred to sociological phenomenon ever since the word was first applied to people.

You made a claim, that claim was false, you were wrong.

Just admit it already and stop going around in circles.

Now, I will ask you one last time:

Do you have ANYTHING ELSE? Because I'm not wasting any more time on this subject just because you refuse to admit you were wrong.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
So for most such a distinction never took place?

Here is the trick. It is perception psychology in part.
Imagine you are looking at a woman and you know her sex. But she is dressed as a male and act as a male in her manners. You will know that she doesn't act like a typical woman, but that is gender, not sex.
How her sex is, is not the same as how she acts as a gender. That is all. But if you don't reflect on that, you don't notice that you are comparing her biological sex with her behavior.
Hence sex is not gender. Sex is how she looks naked in the end. Her behavior is not how she looks physically, it is how she behaves.
 
Top