I disagree. A few years back when the terms Gender and Biology meant the same thing, he/she was in reference to both of those terms. Now that they’ve changed things so they mean something different, the he/she part still applies to both terms; they never changed it so it applies to one but no longer the other. That’s why everybody still refers to their dog or cat as he/she even though they do not have a gender as defined today.
-
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
- Thread starter We Never Know
- Start date
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
They didn't. Gender has specifically referred to social constructs distinct from biology since the seventies, first developing in mid-20th century. Before then, the words were practically only ever used to refer to grammatical categories.
Gender - Wikipedia
No, they didn't. They are gendered terminology. They are gender-specific, not biology-specific.
Again, you're just repeating a falsehood. Nothing has been changed. We just have a better understanding of the distinction between gender and sex now.
It may have been a thing where you live 10 years ago, but it hadn't caught on everwhere like today until recently
Even though you may call them beetle out of politeness, you still realize they are not a beetle; right?
But it's not a big deal if they know it is your shortened nickname; right?
The link you provided proves you wrong and me right. Under the title “for non-human animals” it states how he/she can be used for non-human animals of known sex and gives an example of a bird feeding her young. Known sex is biologyNo, they didn't. They are gendered terminology. They are gender-specific, not biology-specific.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
How does the part that is explicitly for "NON-HUMAN ANIMALS" prove you right that gendered pronouns FOR HUMANS explicitly refers to biology?
Agreed. Not gender.
I consider this a concession that you cannot support your claim of having rebutted what was written to you. I also consider it bad faith argumentation to attempt this. The failure to make your case (twice now) is yours, not mine, and you compounded it by misattributing that failure to me.
Every human apprehension has a degree of subjectivity to it, an observation that doesn't negate human conclusion. The designation phobic is no more subjective than calling somebody polite or quick to anger. It's a description of observed behavior according to prevailing standards of any of those. If somebody never offends when engaging others, how subjective is it to call him polite? If he decompensates rather quickly into emotive language during discussion, that's something that impartial observers can agree about.
Yes. What's your point? That transphobia isn't bigotry if other types of bigotry exist?
I get it. Those decrying pronouns, bathroom assignments, sporting inequalities, drag queens, and the like don't see themselves as bigots and resent being identified as such, but they are not believed, because that very behavior is smoking gun evidence of the irrational aversion those rejecting the designation "transphobic" deny having.
Your choices are to recognize that and adapt to achieve a more desired result than being considered a bigot, or to proceed as before, but not to have that behavior accepted. That is, if you don't want to deal with such attitudes, you can either rethink your position about trans people or rethink your position regarding expressing those feelings publicly.
Only humanists are promoting maximal tolerance in society, opposed by theocratic and authoritarian tendencies in the world, and have been since the writing of the US Constitution, which established the secular, egalitarian, democratic state (on paper at least) with guaranteed individual rights. And this requires continual social pressure to remodel society always against the resistance of established bigots trying to protect their privileged status. They didn't want whites dating or marrying blacks, and now the still-diminishing fraction that still feel that way have to be silent about that. They didn't want women having social or economic equality but now, misogynists need to mind their mouths a little more as Mr. Trump was shown in the rape-defamation case, although he's a very slow learner and may have to face a second suit from the same woman for the same tort.
This is how humanistic progress looks - dragging society into the future with many feeling threatened and objecting. That is the worldview that can optimize human mutual tolerance and human opportunity (educational, economic, etc..) to pursue happiness as they understand it, and that includes the trans community.
Known sex = biology; agree?
To say he/she also applies to known sex is the same as saying he/she applies to biology
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
I didn't say that. I just agreed that the usage for NON HUMAN ANIMALS refers to known sex. Humans use it to refer to gender.
The link makes the case that he/she also applies to biology in reference to mammals. Now if you want to make the case that he/she applies to biology when it comes to all mammals except humans, by all means; make that case.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
No, it says TO NON-HUMAN ANIMALS.
It's explicitly says it in the article.
Do you understand what "non-human" means? Do you not understand the difference between humans - who have a social concept of gender as a categorization and personal label - and animals - who don't?
Last edited:
The article does not mention biology, it says “known sex”. I pointed out that I believe known sex is the same as biology; and you agreed. I am making the case that he/she applies to biology, and though the article does not mention biology specifically, I’m saying it suggests biology applies. Now if you want to say biology does not, you need to find something other than that article to make your case, because nowhere does it say because humans have a social concept of gender as a category, unlike all other mammals, we do not have a biological concept
Last edited:
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Sex refers to biology.
It also specifies that gendered pronouns being attached to known sex applies to NON-HUMAN ANIMALS.
Yep.
Then you're wrong, because it doesn't say that EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF NON-HUMAN ANIMALS.
The article just explains the usage of gendered and non-gendered pronouns. I just used it to illustrate that pronouns are based on gender, not sex, for humans.
You have since laser focused on one part of it that you think supports your earlier assumption, and seem to have completely forgotten (conveniently) that this part of the article explicitly says it applies to NON-HUMAN ANIMALS.
This is as far as you're going to go down this road. Gender has always referred to the social concept, and gendered pronouns for humans have always referred to gender, not sex.
Got anything else?
Yes! But it does not say "non-humans only" It does not exempt humans
First of all, my point was about biology; not just sex. And biology was not mentioned in the article. But logic tells us if she/he is applied to mammals via biology, the same can be said for human mammals unless an exemption is made, and thus far you have not provided an exemption for humans.
Callisto
Hellenismos, BTW
You can do whatever you want. You've been wrong every time before, and may as well continue to be so. Doesn't matter to me, you're just assering your imperious ego requires self-soothing and expect this will somehow get a rise out of me. It doesn't but think as you will to feel better.
My point is that transphobia is not as absolute as your comments consistently imply, rather that whether something is transphobic can be subjective and requires context.
No, you don't get it. Again, you clearly indicate an inability to see things other than in black and white. Sometimes there are bigoted reasons behind a statement, other times there are not. Again: context. If someone says "trans men/women aren't men/women" and then proceeds to rail about "God doesn't make mistakes!" and how transgender is the dangerous ideology of a malevolent agenda then that's evidence the person is coming from a place of hatred, i.e. "being transphobic". However, if someone else says "trans men/women aren't men/women" and then proceeds to offer a factual discussion regarding science, biology, postmodernism, social constructivism, etc., that has not a shred of hatred or bigotry behind it.
That's how you may choose to see it. But given the various discussions I have had with trans persons, your assessment is incorrect. The issue here is your own myopic stance and presuming to dismiss a view you disagree with.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
What do you think "non-human animals" means?
Do you think the category of "non-human animals" INCLUDES humans?
Now you're just going in circles.
You were wrong.
Got anything else?
Augustus
…
It is remarkable how many "critical thinkers" find it completely impossible to grasp the idea that there may be more than one competing (legitimate) moral interest in any given situation.
For example, allowing transwomen to play certain sports significantly increases the risk of (perhaps life changing) injuries to other participants. This has been well established scientifically, and "critical thinkers" always insist they value the findings of science.
So, you can favour safety or you can favour inclusion, you have to choose one over the other though, you can't pick both. Many "critical thinkers" would have it that someone objecting to this increased risk is nothing more than irrational bigotry akin to racial segregation as they are unable to grasp that some moral problems have no clearly correct answer.
Even more remarkable is that such enlightened folk think the best solution to difficult issues is to be as obtuse and antagonistic as possible and insist anyone who disagrees is hateful and should be ignored. A 5 year old understands enough about human psychology to understand this is childish and counterproductive, but the bien-pensant wallowing in self-congratulatory smugness sees it as a brilliant gambit.
If it is "transphobic" to favour safety over inclusion, then it is "misogynistic" to favour subjecting women and girls to increased risk of life changing injuries, especially when such a person has no skin in the game and is simply parading their virtue to others.
Or perhaps it would be best to recognise sometimes moral issues may have legitimate, but incommensurable, conflicts, so there is no clear morally "good" or "bad" position and reasonable people can exist on both sides. Perhaps critical thinkers should be able to recognise this and to discuss it rationally, or perhaps they should stamp their feet and refuse as doing so would make them hateful bigots?
I wonder which of these would be the better example of critical thinking? Hmmmmmm.....
Are we more advanced than you guys?
I’d certainly be worried if that were the case. Like damn, how far down the well are you guys?
Well, yeah.
I have eyes, don’t you know?
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? Do you feel anguish any time you have to accomplish this task? Do you suffer due to acquiescing to such a request from someone?
And all to make someone else’s life a little bit better. Or make them feel a little bit better.
Oh the horror!!!
Why go against that so fervently? Just to be mean? Just to be a jerk?
Seems rather rude if you ask me. Callus even
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
Last edited:
Augustus
…
I agree that it’s just good manners to call someone by their preferred pronoun out of he/she/they. This is fair enough as it doesn't really impose on people at all, and covers male/female/neutral.
Expecting others go beyond these is rather conceited though imo. Politeness is 2 way, folk should make reasonable allowances for others, but they should also try to avoid imposing on others. Expecting near unlimited choice of preferred ways of address does impose on others, especially when you know making errors might offend.
It's no different from someone with a PhD in English demanding you call them Doctor Smith rather than Mr Smith, or someone demanding to be called Sir Henry rather than Henry. If folk want to do it fair enough, if not then fair enough too.
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
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?
True.
No one should be compelled to use any title they don’t want to.
But that’s the thing, isn’t it?
All politeness, all common decency relies exclusively upon the willingness of all the participants. Does it not?
What really compels a person to use titles such as Mr or Mrs? Or titles such as Aunty or Uncle?
I use such titles interchangeably and indeed based exclusively upon cultural perimeters. Nothing else.
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?
(if you follow?)
From my point of view such a lack of willingness to participate in such a rather easy polite exchange of preferred pronouns is nothing more than laziness at best and outright rudeness at worst
Again be thankful you’re speaking English. Other languages are not so easy going with Pronouns.
Bunch of crybabies, I swear
Last edited:
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. 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. IMO the article was not a very good one because it left a lot of questions unanswered.