|
Wednesday, 7 March 2012
quote [ By ... refusing to gender us appropriately, refusing to use the appropriate pronouns, ... it is possible to sweep all the questions aside.
By ... insisting on your right to “sir” us, and all the little games cis people play in daily interactions where they assert who has control of the discourse, it is possible to keep trans people forever in a position of vulnerability, perpetually dependent on external validations and mercies ... ] Given that I have ended up on the unpleasant end of the quoted behaviors here, in the corner of the web that I've considered a "home" for almost a decade, I ask that you take this opportunity to explore some of the reasons you might have had difficulty with our conversations, and to understand that we are all subject to motivations that escape our surface cognition.
[by skainsmate@1:40pmGMT] [+10 Interesting] (The Quoted Text section didn't have room for the following, so here is more SE thinking I wanted to address: "We’re 'just' trying to get attention. ... We’re 'just' unable to think outside of gender boxes and labels. ... We’re 'just' buying into outdated binaries.") None of this makes you a bad person, and the ability to change your mind takes an uncommon amount of integrity. BONUS LINKS: Center for Gender Sanity's Diagram of Sex and Gender http://www.gendersanity.com/diagram.html 13 Myths and Misconceptions About Trans Women http://skepchick.org/2012/01/13-myths-and-misconceptions-about-trans-women-part-one/ |
|
structured_spirits
said @ 1:59pm GMT on 7th Mar
And that doesn't just apply to trans people either. Man or Woman or Other, we're all victims of gender stereotyping controlling ouir actions to some degree. Society sucks. |
|
endopol
said @ 2:19pm GMT on 7th Mar
It's all about dangling your bits in the right places. |
|
bruceski
said @ 2:40pm GMT on 7th Mar
Hey! Watch where you're dangling those bits! |
|
happiest_sadist
said @ 5:35am GMT on 8th Mar
You dangle, I'll watch. |
|
sanepride
said @ 4:11pm GMT on 7th Mar
So if we're "all victims", who are the perpetrators? Oh, right. "Society". |
|
KingPellinore
said @ 4:20pm GMT on 7th Mar
Are you being sarcastic? If not, I'd say the answer is Heteronormative society oppressed those who do not conform to it. |
|
sanepride
said @ 4:32pm GMT on 7th Mar
Is 'society' some uncontrollable force of nature? Is it not ultimately composed of individuals, with individual attitudes, thoughts, and deeds? |
|
skainsmate
said @ 4:45pm GMT on 7th Mar
Are those individuals not created by their societies? |
|
sanepride
said @ 5:16pm GMT on 7th Mar
...or vice-versa? |
|
KingPellinore
said @ 5:50pm GMT on 7th Mar
I'm daily certain that society, by definition, cannot be created by an individual. |
|
KingPellinore
said @ 5:50pm GMT on 7th Mar
*fairly certain At airport posting from phone. |
|
spite48
said @ 8:44pm GMT on 7th Mar
But he said it was composed of individuals, not created by an individual. |
|
KingPellinore
said @ 12:18am GMT on 8th Mar
Um, not in the comment I was replying to, he wasn't. |
|
spite48
said @ 1:53am GMT on 8th Mar
I'm confused. But, instead of reading these comments again I'm going to go home and have a drink. I went to the dentist today for some painful work, and arguing on the internet doesn't seem like fun today, especially if I might be wrong. |
|
KingPellinore
said @ 3:57am GMT on 8th Mar
No problem, dude. Enjoy that novocaine! And that drink. Or four. |
|
skainsmate
said @ 11:32am GMT on 8th Mar
You cannot seriously be equating the amount of control society has over an individual with the amount of control an individual has over society. |
|
KingPellinore
said @ 4:48pm GMT on 7th Mar
I'm not sure what exactly you're driving at, but I don't think I like it. Are you suggesting people never act as a group? And are you further suggesting that behavior or appearance, whether by choice or by birth, out of the accepted norm is not ostracised? |
|
sanepride
said @ 5:22pm GMT on 7th Mar
Just saying that, despite sometimes strong societal pressures, individuals do have the choice to not be victims or perpetrators. And I will admit to not having RTFA, for what it's worth to this discussion. |
|
skainsmate
said @ 5:27pm GMT on 7th Mar
How about you read the fucking article, then? |
|
sanepride
said @ 5:42pm GMT on 7th Mar
[Score:1 Underrated]
To be honest I'm really not that interested. Personally I have no issue with trans-women, men, or all/none of the above. |
|
KingPellinore
said @ 5:49pm GMT on 7th Mar
That's willfull ignorance and you know it. |
|
sanepride
said @ 6:07pm GMT on 7th Mar
[Score:1 Informative]
I dunno if I'd call it 'willful ignorance' so much as willful apathy. Maybe I'm missing something, but a quick skim seems to suggest that this article is a whole lotta words about how trans-women (and perhaps women in general) are victimized by such societal circumstances as how language is skewed toward male domination. IMO this boils down to people who insist on being victims of semantics. I may indeed be missing something here...but is such a blanket complaint against society and culture not subject to the old 'sticks and stones..' argument? |
|
blindnerd
said @ 6:35pm GMT on 7th Mar
[Score:3 Informative]
The piece you seem to be missing is that, according to the National Transgender Discrimination Survey, 20% of trans-women end up homeless, 97% experience on the job harassment, 1 in 4 has lost a job due to gender identity and they are orders of magnitudes more likely to be murdered than non-trans women -- even when controlling for other demographics. That hardly seems like "semantics" to me. All this terrible real world bigotry and violence begins with the way trans people are viewed by society as " the other", which is what the article is trying to address. |
|
Moleculor
said @ 10:37pm GMT on 7th Mar
None of those statistics are linked to grammar or semantics, however. |
|
blindnerd
said @ 11:22pm GMT on 7th Mar
Whatever you are accusing me of I'm going to blame on all my responses being typed in an iPhone in 5 minute bursts between "important" meetings. |
|
b
said @ 2:46am GMT on 8th Mar
[Score:2 Funny]
read: trips to the bathroom. |
|
arctan
said @ 5:17am GMT on 8th Mar
The old "sticks and stones" argument is something privileged assholes say so they don't have to get involved in something they can't be arsed to care about. Humans are social animals. Words are an intensely powerful tool to shape behavior and affect or attack other people's psychology. They are, if anything, more important to analyze than actions because *they cause actions* -- people don't decide to gay-bash in a vacuum, they gay-bash because of a social climate created by words. |
|
blindnerd
said @ 6:01pm GMT on 7th Mar
You've sure making a lot of comments for someone "not that interested". |
|
sanepride
said @ 6:10pm GMT on 7th Mar
Yeah that's a good point. This all started only because I foolishly decided to tweak structured's typically generalized pronouncements that 'we're all victims' and 'society sucks'. I gotta learn to just mind my own bizness. |
|
KingPellinore
said @ 7:11pm GMT on 7th Mar
[Score:1 Insightful]
You realise you're engaging in strawman rhetoric, right? |
|
KingPellinore
said @ 5:48pm GMT on 7th Mar
Oh, so guys who beat down transvestotes and homosexuals all have a choice, so the societal factors that contribute to that attitude and behavior don't matter? Jesus, man. That's pretty cold. |
|
sanepride
said @ 5:55pm GMT on 7th Mar
Well that's not really what I said. How after all are we expected to alter or influence negative societal factors? |
|
KingPellinore
said @ 5:58pm GMT on 7th Mar
The same way we try to do so regarding racism and sexism; by increasing awareness and condemning them. |
|
sanepride
said @ 6:12pm GMT on 7th Mar
[Score:1 Insightful]
True, thought there is something to be said for aggressive legal & political solutions. |
|
sanepride
said @ 6:20pm GMT on 7th Mar
...also, I like the idea of people simply not getting too worked up and victimized over ingrained cultural factors (like language) that they can do little about. Sure it would be great to just eliminate all gender preferences from all languages (for purely selfish reasons, it would make it a lot easier to learn really gender-biased languages like Spanish, French, German, etc). But alas, as convenient as such paradigm shifts may be, I just don't see it happening. |
|
KingPellinore
said @ 6:55pm GMT on 7th Mar
[Score:1 Insightful]
Has it occurred to you that perhaps the apathy of good people such as yourself is part of the problem? |
|
spite48
said @ 8:55pm GMT on 7th Mar
[Score:2 Insightful]
I think there is a limit to how much people can care about. The people who are arguing in this thread are likely all in agreement that people should be treated equally, and the main points of contention might be to what extent we need to change our language to change our societal norms, how to do that, how far to go, and to what extent this particular issue is urgent compared with other social, environmental and economic issues. I'd think that equal treatment socially will have to precede any more comprehensive language and normative social changes. All of which might be somewhat complicated because the religious right won't even engage in the discussion as rational people, some of them still don't think women should be allowed to vote, and if the left makes this a big political/social issue the right will capitalize on that. |
|
Bubba
said @ 4:08am GMT on 8th Mar
Thas some mighty big words on you, boy. Bend over and I'll show you a point of content... cuntent... whatever the hell you said. |
|
spite48
said @ 5:03pm GMT on 8th Mar
Okay, but only because I like learning with my prostate. |
|
blindnerd
said @ 4:59am GMT on 8th Mar
I know the quoted text is talking about language but the actual article deals with all the social norms that make life difficult for those of transfer orientation. |
|
spite48
said @ 5:05pm GMT on 8th Mar
I did read it, and I found it thought provoking. I'll post a separate comment on my thoughts. |
|
skainsmate
said @ 7:29pm GMT on 7th Mar
[Score:1 Insightful]
I quoted language use when posting this because it was the most relevant to my experience on this website. It is not the focus of the article. Perhaps you shouldn't suggest "people simply not getting too worked up" without actually reading anything. |
|
arctan
said @ 5:20am GMT on 8th Mar
[Score:1 Underrated]
...also, I like the idea of people simply not getting too worked up and victimized over ingrained cultural factors (like language) that they can do little about. Of course you like it. It'd make life easy for you. People should always be considerate enough to magically vanish their emotional pain in such a way as to avoid inconveniencing bystanders. Sure it would be great to just eliminate all gender preferences from all languages (for purely selfish reasons, it would make it a lot easier to learn really gender-biased languages like Spanish, French, German, etc). But alas, as convenient as such paradigm shifts may be, I just don't see it happening. RTFA. It's not about banning the terms "he" and "she" entirely, it's about being a courteous and civil enough human being that if someone asks you to use a certain pronoun for them you do it, rather than being the kind of asswipe who lectures them on being "really" male and therefore "he" being "really" correct. |
|
happiest_sadist
said @ 5:41am GMT on 8th Mar
Language changes all the time. We can make these changes if we decide to do so. It's not easy, it takes time, and it might not ever do us individually any good. It can be fun just the same, especially if it freaks out the "straights". |
|
hellboy
said @ 7:08am GMT on 8th Mar
[Score:2 Insightful]
I like the idea of people simply not getting too worked up and victimized over ingrained cultural factors (like language) that they can do little about. That's called privilege. It would be better if everyone was able to shrug these things off, but that's a lot harder to do if you've been getting negative messages about who you are all your life. |
|
Dalillama
said @ 1:41am GMT on 8th Mar
[Score:1 Interesting]
Really? How does one go about "choosing" not to be a victim, exactly? |
|
mechanical contrivance
said @ 3:13am GMT on 8th Mar
I wondered that myself. |
|
blibblob
said @ 3:41am GMT on 8th Mar
[Score:1 Funny]
By manning the fuck up! Amirite? |
|
Naruki
said @ 4:10am GMT on 8th Mar
[Score:-1 Troll]
Yeah, stop being a sissy and grow some balls! |
|
arrowhen
said @ 4:50am GMT on 8th Mar
"Why do people say 'grow some balls'? Balls are weak and sensitive. If you wanna be tough, grow a vagina. Those things can take a pounding." --either Betty White or Dan Savage, according to the internet. |
|
blibblob
said @ 9:25pm GMT on 8th Mar
I think the weak, fleshy, intense pain with a tap attributes of the balls is what truly gives meaning to the phrase "balls of steel". Now whether anyone actually has balls of steel or if it's just a uselessly arrogant and misoginistic concept is a different story. |
|
skainsmate
said @ 11:33am GMT on 8th Mar
Most perpetrators do not know they are being such. Almost everyone believes they're in the right. Like you, right now. |
|
theolypse
said @ 1:02am GMT on 8th Mar
Sure. But, like any other emergent phenomena, that society does not automatically benefit any of its members simply by virtue of having been created through their actions. |
|
arrowhen
said @ 5:26pm GMT on 7th Mar
[Score:5 Insightful]
"Victim" and "perpetrator" aren't mutually exclusive. |
|
sanepride
said @ 6:31pm GMT on 7th Mar
True. |
|
blindnerd
said @ 6:19pm GMT on 7th Mar
While a good point, I think it is also important to remember that we are not all effected equally. While a man deciding to leave his job to become a "house husband" might experience a negative reception from society, he is not going to be the target of the same level of bigotry and potential physical violence as another man who chooses to transition. I don't point this out to start a game of Who Has It Worse but just as a reminder that while redefining our views on gender can help everyone a little bit, for some it is literally a matter of life or death. |
|
Naruki
said @ 4:10am GMT on 8th Mar
Affected. |
|
blindnerd
said @ 4:54am GMT on 8th Mar
Of all my terrible grammar and typos in this thread, that one bothers me the least. |
|
yevishere
said @ 2:43pm GMT on 7th Mar
Tl;dr haters gonna hate.. |
|
Mr. Langosta
said @ 3:11pm GMT on 7th Mar
I'm 100% for gay rights, marriage, and equality -- and same goes for all of LGBT -- but the T, transgender does disturb me. I have the same, internal, reaction I do to extreme body modification people, and I do often equate the two in my mind. I've marched for their rights, but I can't help that they creep me out just as much as people with under the skin facial implant, cleft tongues, and back piercings to hang from. I keep it to myself (this is the 1st time I've said anything), and don't let it impinge my actions, but there it is. I'm not looking for a pat on the back or even understanding. It's just a viewpoint. |
|
Misanthrope
said @ 3:21pm GMT on 7th Mar
I just find it an interesting subculture. |
|
TM
said @ 3:29pm GMT on 7th Mar
An understandable viewpoint nonetheless, and one I share. I think it's reasonable to believe in, and work toward, the concept of "that's your way; it ain't mine, but I support your right to your way." Striving for equity should not require that you adopt another's way, only that you should respect that theirs is as legitimate to them as yours is to you. Personally, I draw the line at transgender people demanding I change my pronouns. You're entitled to do as you think best with your body and your self-concept, and I'll respect it. I'll call you whatever you ask me to call you. But I will not cease using gender-specific pronouns when speaking and writing, and I reject the notion that by doing so, I am perpetuating oppression. |
|
foobar
said @ 6:20pm GMT on 7th Mar
[Score:2]
I tend to feel the same way, but I'll offer this perspective: the pronouns probably mean a great deal more to them than they do to you. |
|
Moleculor
said @ 8:47pm GMT on 7th Mar
[Score:1 Underrated]
To reiterate a point I make in a much longer post down the page (hidden in one of those handy boxes), their favorite band/animal/color/food probably means a great deal more to them than it does to me too. |
|
foobar
said @ 9:10pm GMT on 7th Mar
What I mean is that you using what you consider to be the correct pronoun to refer to them is going to be a lot less important to you than it is to them. If someone really dislikes fish, maybe don't insist on a sushi restaurant? |
|
Moleculor
said @ 10:37pm GMT on 7th Mar
Then they should be comfortable with the fact that I'm not going to all that good at memorizing specific deviations from decades of doing things 'one way' just because *to them* not eating meat is really really important. Or pronouns or whatever. If they look like a male, and I say 'he', and they get bent 'round the axle because of one single letter... well... sorry, but it's just not that important to me to memorize that they are a unique special snowflake that has to be treated a very specific way. If someone comes up to me and says "I'm a fairy in a human body, and you will refer to me by my fairy pronoun of tala," then, well, they might just have to deal with the fact that I don't see them as a fairy and I might not remember that particular quirk of their reality every time I talk to or about them. We're talking about people getting upset that literally everyone else in the entire universe isn't breaking a decades-old habit or way of doing things just to make them feel more comfortable in their own skin. I don't go around insisting that everyone else around me behave in a particular way just to make me feel comfortable, because I don't have that right. Why do they? It is, ultimately, just a word, and if someone gets it "wrong" (debatable, considering that gender isn't a universal concept and for some of us gender doesn't exist), that doesn't justify calling them a transphobe, which is generally language associated with violent assaults. |
|
foobar
said @ 10:51pm GMT on 7th Mar
Fine, but really, I think you are well aware by now that trans folk prefer to be referred to by their adopted gender. If you're not willing to do it then it's not because you've forgotten. I agree with you that it's just a word. To them it appears to be much more important. Maybe we should just let them have this one, since it doesn't matter much to us. |
|
Moleculor
said @ 10:59pm GMT on 7th Mar
I think you are well aware by now that trans folk prefer to be referred to by their adopted gender. Yes. If you're not willing to do it then it's not because you've forgotten. Remembering about it in general in a discussion of transgender issues is not the same as remembering about it in their specific case in my day-to-day life when I'm busy dealing with my own shit. I have a hard enough time remembering the names of people I've worked with for years. I don't refer to things through rote memorization, I speak, do, and think along mentally-kinesthetic lines. i.e. When I refer to a cisgender man, I'm not saying "he" because I've memorized his preferred pronoun, I'm saying "he" because of male characteristics. This is how my brain works. Completely and radically altering my neurological patterns and structure would be incredibly difficult. We're talking years, possibly decades of intense therapy. All to make a tiny minority slightly more comfortable. I suggest that that tiny minority do what the entire rest of the planet does and be comfortable with themselves without relying on others to alter their behavior to do so. |
|
foobar
said @ 11:24pm GMT on 7th Mar
I find that rather hard to believe. If you are in fact wired that differently from everyone else, well, you're a tiny minority who shouldn't rely on others to cut you any slack, right? |
|
Moleculor
said @ 12:41am GMT on 8th Mar
So far as I'm aware, that's not different from anyone else. Are you telling me that you memorize which pronoun to use for everyone you meet? |
|
Moleculor
said @ 12:47am GMT on 8th Mar
...and by that I mean "separate from their physical appearance"? |
|
azazel
said @ 4:05am GMT on 8th Mar
Why would you add that? If it looks like a guy, address it like a guy, if it looks like a girl, address it like a girl? If they ask you to address them in a specific way, make a mental note of it. It's not that fucking hard. |
|
Moleculor
said @ 4:23am GMT on 8th Mar
Why would you add that? Because he's implying that everyone memorizes pronouns based on the other person's preference in all cases, and I wanted to make sure we were discussing only that. If it looks like a guy, address it like a guy, if it looks like a girl, address it like a girl? Yes. If they ask you to address them in a specific way, make a mental note of it. ...and then get lumped in with the murdering assholes who commit hate crimes when I forget, and I WILL forget. It's not that fucking hard. Well... congratufuckinglations for being so good at remembering that kind of really minor stuff? Rote memorization of facts is a terribly bad method of data storage. To this day, I still have to do math to remember how much 12 times 11 is. Just "throwing math at it" for figuring out various things is a far more space-efficient method of keeping track of things, because the rules remain the same. Up until about five years ago (for me), pronoun usage rules were always the same: If it looks like a guy, refer to them as a guy. Girl? Girl. Now there's this fucking monkey wrench in the method that literally means I have to start writing fucking notes down places to keep track of everyone's damn pronoun, or else get labeled a trans-phobic hate-crime supporting asshole, despite the fact that I'm all for equal rights. Which is bullshit for something so completely unimportant as a damn "s". |
|
blindnerd
said @ 5:16am GMT on 8th Mar
[Score:1 Insightful]
Dude, you're hyperbole is bordering on insane. Do you get this upset when people expect you to remember their name? Oh boo hoo! You have to remember that the person with boobs wearing the dress and make up and going by the name "Sally" prefers to be acknowledged as a woman, which is super hard to remember because she has broad shoulders and a firm jawline. If only the 0 trans people you claimed to have interacted with knew what a living hell they were making your life into. |
|
blindnerd
said @ 5:23am GMT on 8th Mar
...and yes, I totally meant "you are hyperbole" in that first sentence. It was not just another embarrassing typo. |
|
arctan
said @ 5:53am GMT on 8th Mar
In the old days it was simple to gauge someone's social status -- if they were white you called them "Mister" or "Miz" and said "please" and "thank you", and if they were black you called them "boy" or "girl" and barked orders at them. That was a simple set of rules, like math. *Now* you have to actually bother to memorize someone's social status when you talk to them and *remember* all this shit and write it all down on little notes. It's so goddamn *inconvenient* that you can't just say "A black guy, call him 'boy'", you have to actually *remember" "This black guy is the manager of my division and I have to call him Mr. Henderson". Don't you just hate inconvenient people having details about themselves that are inconvenient that you have to remember in order to, like, "recognize" and "know" them? Isn't it so much better to just have categories you can reflexively put people into without thinking? |
|
azazel
said @ 10:14am GMT on 8th Mar
[Score:1 Underrated]
I don't have to bother to remember anyone's social status when I talk with them, I simply treat everyone with respect. |
|
arctan
said @ 8:00am GMT on 8th Mar
[Score:1 Underrated]
Also I'd like to point out that if Moleculor is really as exacting as he claims then it's not only possible but likely that one of the people he reflexively refers to as "he" based on an instinct so ingrained he cannot possibly be corrected out of it by any amount of social persuasion is a XX-chromosome cisgender female. There are plenty of women who probably don't look feminine enough for Moleculor to get a boner, and he seems to think if he fucks that up too then it's their damn fault for getting offended and he is under no obligation to correct himself when politely asked. |
|
Dissonant
said @ 4:13pm GMT on 8th Mar
[Score:1 Insightful]
I think it's more that he's frightened that they won't accept his apology when he offers it. |
|
Moleculor
said @ 6:06pm GMT on 8th Mar
Yes. I'm primarily afraid that I'm going to have some asshole suddenly jump out of the woodwork and scream at me for "getting it wrong" in much the way arctan has. People tell me that in reality, transfolk are much more forgiving. I don't know if arctan is one of them, but his/hers is absolutely the exact kind of response I'm terrified of getting. Something overblown, out of proportion, and making assumptions left and right about my opinions of *people* based on a misplaced 's'. |
|
skainsmate
said @ 7:31pm GMT on 8th Mar
You have not presented yourself as worried about slipping up once or twice, which any trans person I know would respond to with a correction and forgiveness. You have framed your argument around the fact that you shouldn't be expected to use a person's preferred gender in referring to them, because it's just one little letter. And your Fetlife post was an entirely different animal. This is all either a matter of you backtracking and trying to sound more reasonable (in which case, kudos on changing your mind - it's admirable) or a matter of you not being bad at expressing yourself (which I guess would explain why you're so terrified of trans ninjas). |
|
skainsmate
said @ 7:35pm GMT on 8th Mar
-not* Irony. |
|
Moleculor
said @ 10:53pm GMT on 8th Mar
You have framed your argument around the fact that you shouldn't be expected to use a person's preferred gender in referring to them, because it's just one little letter. Er, no. I get the impression you've misinterpreted something I've written somewhere. Either that or I misspoke somewhere, which considering how fucking complicated the language around this topic is (oh god, don't get me started...), would not surprise me. What I'm saying is that for 100% of the people I currently know, I use pronouns to refer to apparent sexual phenotype. If someone comes along (and I KNOW I've stated THIS bit multiple times) who requests that I use a pronoun that is opposite of what their apparent sexual phenotype is, I will give it a try, but they're asking me to run counter to nigh-thirty-years of habit, so I'm almost certainly going to fuck up, and would prefer they not fly off the handle about it if it happens. Please note that this situation that I've described is an ENTIRELY NARROW SITUATION. It involves a person who *self-identifies as a gender that is not physically apparent*. Which, from what I gather, is an entirely uncommon situation. Take the redheads posted somewhere in here. Lets just say for the sake of argument that they are, in fact, transgender (and transsexual). I would have absolutely no problem (and no difficulty) using the word 'she' to refer to them. Their apparent sex is female, thus there is no conflicting set of information present, and my brain doesn't lock up trying to figure shit out. Let me go ahead and quote the relevant text I wrote (and bold the important part) that (apparently) started this whole fiasco: If they look like a male, and I say 'he', I get the impression people are ignoring that, and reading it as "any transgender person", not as "male-in-appearance". |
|
blindnerd
said @ 7:43pm GMT on 8th Mar
[Score:1 Underrated]
No one has attacked you for messing up pronouns, you've been attacked for your attitude of "it's soooo hard, you can't expect me to even try." There's a difference between an honest mistake and privileged apathy. This is made all the more frustrating by the fact that you admit to all your complaints being hypothetical, since you have zero really world experiences with trans people. When Natalie or skainsmate talk about the difficuly of people refusing to refer to them by their presented gender, that is a real world experience that provides one of the many weapons transpobes use to humiliate and alienate them. You, on the other hand, are willing to write hundreds of words about how unfair having to refer to people by a gender they might not have been born with based on the possibility of maybe one day a transgendered person not liking you. |
|
Moleculor
said @ 11:15pm GMT on 8th Mar
I've stated multiple times I'm willing to try. |
|
arctan
said @ 9:11pm GMT on 8th Mar
I'm not screaming at you for "getting it wrong". You haven't actually "gotten it wrong" once this entire conversation. I'm screaming at you for this obnoxious passive-aggressive apologia for "getting it wrong". When grownups get something wrong, they apologize for it and move on. They do not whine at great length about how UNFAIR it is that they were expected to get it right. The former is a minor social faux pas that decent human beings forgive. The latter makes you a tremendous douche. |
|
Dissonant
said @ 9:15pm GMT on 8th Mar
Suppose Moleculor were on the autistic spectrum. Would your feelings change? |
|
arctan
said @ 9:19pm GMT on 8th Mar
Not particularly. People on the spectrum face a lot of challenges, but the best way to deal with those challenges in the social sphere is usually the direct way -- if you don't know how to treat a person ask them how they'd like to be treated and then follow their instructions. Apologize if you fuck it up. If anything autistic people who follow such instructions still come off as awkward and weird but are better and nicer people than neurotypical people who feel unfairly burdened by being asked to do this because they feel they know what the true unwritten rules of social interaction are and anyone who breaks them is a freak who deserves scorn. I see the whole "But he's *obviously* really a guy so I should be allowed to treat him as such" thing as a far more neurotypical reaction than autism-spectrum reaction. |
|
Dissonant
said @ 9:40pm GMT on 8th Mar
Again, I think you're misreading him. I don't understand where "I ought to be able to treat him as such" is part of what Moleculor is saying. But maybe I'm just too forgiving? I don't know, wouldn't be the first time. |
|
azazel
said @ 1:03am GMT on 9th Mar
I think it's in how you read his posts. When he says stuff like: i.e. When I refer to a cisgender man, I'm not saying "he" because I've memorized his preferred pronoun, I'm saying "he" because of male characteristics. This is how my brain works. Completely and radically altering my neurological patterns and structure would be incredibly difficult. We're talking years, possibly decades of intense therapy. All to make a tiny minority slightly more comfortable. [...] I suggest that that tiny minority do what the entire rest of the planet does and be comfortable with themselves without relying on others to alter their behavior to do so. [a reply to 'it's not very hard to remember to call a woman 'her' if she's wearing a dress:] Well... congratufuckinglations for being so good at remembering that kind of really minor stuff? [...] If it looks like a guy, refer to them as a guy. Girl? Girl. Now there's this fucking monkey wrench in the method that literally means I have to start writing fucking notes down places to keep track of everyone's damn pronoun, or else get labeled a trans-phobic hate-crime supporting asshole, despite the fact that I'm all for equal rights. Which is bullshit for something so completely unimportant as a damn "s". I'm not going to completely reprogram the entire way my brain works for 100% of the population to protect myself from a person who's going to jump down my throat for misusing a pronoun. |
|
azazel
said @ 1:06am GMT on 9th Mar
Maybe I should end my posts as well. Anyway, when he says stuff like that, it does sound like he doesn't really give a shit about their feelings, especially with loaded phrases like : tiny minority slightly more comfortable. really minor stuff Which is bullshit for something so completely unimportant as a damn "s". non-valid source of sexual arousal |
|
Dissonant
said @ 11:25pm GMT on 8th Mar
Also,although I agree with your analysis in general, I disagree in this specific case. Referring to someone via a pronoun for the first time can be a scary experience, and asking which pronoun you should use is actually more likely to generate scorn than using the wrong one and apologizing afterward, because it's difficult to explain your need to ask properly. So, basically, there's no way to "ask" in this case that doesn't end up fucking things up worse. I agree in general, though. |
|
azazel
said @ 12:19am GMT on 9th Mar
The scenario is so goddamn narrow that it's bordering on ridiculous. If you work in a store I suppose you could have a need to address people with pronouns, but honestly it shouldn't be very hard to dodge that. Other than that, you either meet people when others introduce you, in which case you'll get a NAME to attach to the person -- if that person's name is female, it's a woman. There are a few gender-neutral names though, but they're rather rare to begin with and the chances of: You meeting a transgender woman, who isn't obviously female, who has a gender-neutral name, and who will explode if addressed incorrectly, in a situation where you have to address her with pronouns, are pretty much infinitesimal. It's starting to border on stupid. |
|
GordonGuano
said @ 2:55am GMT on 9th Mar
[Score:1 Insightful]
Spend some time working fast food drive-thru and you will tell a large black woman to "drive to the last window, sir" before too long. It's the kind of mistake you generally only make once. |
|
Moleculor
said @ 10:40am GMT on 8th Mar
I really am hyperbole. |
|
azazel
said @ 10:17am GMT on 8th Mar
[Score:1 Underrated]
Because it's not minor to them. If it's something that's important to them, and you talk with them on a regular basis -- or just in a single meeting for that matter -- you shouldn't be disrespectful. If you trip up, so what? It happens, most people aren't hurt by it and here's the kicker: if you try to respect their wishes, they won't be hurt by it either. The difference is that you're saying 'fuck that, I'll just ignore their feelings and disrespect their wishes because it's a convenient excuse for me.' |
|
Moleculor
said @ 4:53pm GMT on 8th Mar
If you trip up, so what? So I've just offended someone in the worst way imaginable, apparently. Or so the bazillion various different times I've read articles calling people trans-phobes for screwing a pronoun up suggest. |
|
azazel
said @ 7:39pm GMT on 8th Mar
If you approach it like any sane person would, I don't think there'd be a problem. There are always people that will scream for any slight -- perceived or real -- and if you let the radicals decide how you deal with the larger population, you're bound to live a life of very, very difficult social situations. This isn't about transgender persons either -- every group has them. Anime fans that will blow up if you say you don't like [their favourite show], Tolkien fans that will scream bloody murder if you say that you don't particularly enjoy the LotR books, religious people, politicians (although not very successful ones, I guess), family members... EVERY group has people that act that way, and you can't let them decide how you approach the group at large. |
|
Moleculor
said @ 10:11pm GMT on 8th Mar
If you approach it like any sane person would I think you're using 'sane' to describe 'people who view the world in terms that I personally identify with'. Which is inappropriate. if you let the radicals decide how you deal with the larger population, you're bound to live a life of very, very difficult social situations. The problem here is that the over-sensitive types are the ones who are usually screaming "BIGOT!" the loudest, and that *absolutely* can have a negative impact on everything from my own self-image to the way others treat me, even outside of that group, even if the person doing the screaming is absolutely over-reacting. |
|
blindnerd
said @ 10:42pm GMT on 8th Mar
...and that *absolutely* can have a negative impact on everything from my own self-image to the way others treat me, even outside of that group... And how do you think a trans person feels when you refuse to acknowledge them by their preferred gender? |
|
Moleculor
said @ 10:57pm GMT on 8th Mar
Ok, where the FUCK did I say I REFUSED to call someone by their chosen gender? Seriously. Someone link it to me so I can fucking apologize for it, because I certainly don't remember saying it, and I certainly DO remember stating MULTIPLE TIMES that if someone asks me to use a gender that runs counter to their apparent sex, I'd try. |
|
azazel
said @ 12:12am GMT on 9th Mar
Inappropriate how? I think regular people, if they make a mistake, apologize for it. That's my definition of sane. Your idea is not sane -- that is, the idea you've been pushing this entire thread: "I will make a mistake and they will be angry so instead I will defend my right to call them by what I perceive them to be, not what they want me to call them." A regular person, I would think (and hope) would instead say "Okay, so this person wants me to call her 'she'. I'll try and do that, and if I make a mistake I'll apologize." I seriously doubt most people that interact with transgenders cook up your insane scenarios. |
|
theolypse
said @ 1:08am GMT on 8th Mar
Dude, you're going way out of proportion, here. I slip and use the wrong pronoun around friends I didn't even know pre-transition, because of those same cues. And because I don't actually think of them as perverted men in dresses, and because I do actually want them to be protected from people who do, it's not a big deal. We laugh it off. Shit happens. It's like calling a girlfriend by an ex's name once in a blue moon. You don't even have to want to do any given transwoman. Jesus, do you get hard for every ciswoman you run across? Of course not. Let it go. It's the extra scrutiny, the raised benchmarks, the suspicion and wariness, and the violence and prejudice and financial and social harm that often follow from those other factors, that are really problematic, not whether you tend to forget that Marcia isn't named Kevin anymore and would like you to stop calling her "him". Just acknowledge that che has a point. |
|
theolypse
said @ 1:15am GMT on 8th Mar
[Score:1 Good]
She. She, not che. I am not inventing yet another pronoun here. |
|
Moleculor
said @ 1:36am GMT on 8th Mar
[Score:1 Insightful]
I slip and use the wrong pronoun around friends I didn't even know pre-transition, because of those same cues. And because I don't actually think of them as perverted men in dresses, and because I do actually want them to be protected from people who do, it's not a big deal. We laugh it off. Shit happens. It's like calling a girlfriend by an ex's name once in a blue moon. Well if that's how it really happens out there with real people, then awesome, that's exactly what I'm asking for. Sanity and the realization that we're all human. I have no experience with actual person-to-person interaction with transgender people, so the only examples of reaction I know of are these highly charged 'articles' about how misplacing a single letter in a word is representative of how I'm a trans-hating bastard who would just as soon stab someone for looking funny. That's all I'm operating off of, and so thus I'm asking for a bit more sanity and humanity in the discussion. So, in essence, yes, you've precisely restated my point. |
|
theolypse
said @ 1:44am GMT on 8th Mar
It is a hard subject to address both to reasonable behavior such as you seem to engage in AND unreasonable behavior elsewhere. Likewise any social reform. |
|
Dissonant
said @ 1:47am GMT on 8th Mar
I agree, but having read |
|
Dissonant
said @ 1:48am GMT on 8th Mar
[Score:2 WTF]
this recently, I think "sanity" is setting the bar a little too high. |
|
blibblob
said @ 3:49am GMT on 8th Mar
Riiiiight. Because torturing a cat with unnatural, unhealthy food is sooOOOoooOOOoo vegan. |
|
azazel
said @ 4:06am GMT on 8th Mar
[Score:1 Interesting]
So you have no experience with actual person-to-person interaction with transgender people and yet they 'creep you out'? |
|
mechanical contrivance
said @ 5:12am GMT on 8th Mar
[Score:3 Insightful]
People often don't like stuff they have no experience with. There might be a word for it. |
|
Moleculor
said @ 5:22pm GMT on 8th Mar
Uh, no, I never said they "creep me out". Perhaps y |
|
Moleculor
said @ 5:22pm GMT on 8th Mar
HRGBLEBHGBELH ...perhaps you're confusing me with someone else? Or maybe you're just trolling. |
|
azazel
said @ 7:40pm GMT on 8th Mar
Does my other posts look like I'm trolling? I mixed you and Mr. Langosta up, sorry about that. |
|
Moleculor
said @ 11:09pm GMT on 8th Mar
Honestly? With the hostility you're giving me over the fact that I'd TRY to use the correct pronoun in situations where their physicality doesn't line up with their gender, but ultimately will probably fuck up, and would prefer I not be murderized for it? Yes, it does feel like you're trolling me. |
|
blindnerd
said @ 11:26pm GMT on 8th Mar
[Score:1 Insightful]
Why do you insist on pretending that people regularly have harm come to them for making a small mistake regarding pronouns? |
|
Dissonant
said @ 11:31pm GMT on 8th Mar
I think I know the answer to this, but you're right, I'd like to hear Moleculor's answer. |
|
Moleculor
said @ 11:46pm GMT on 8th Mar
Who the fuck said anything about REGULARLY? |
|
azazel
said @ 11:41pm GMT on 8th Mar
Son, you aint seen me hostile yet. |
|
Naruki
said @ 12:04am GMT on 9th Mar
[Score:1 Funny]
Maybe he prefers to be called daughter. |
|
happiest_sadist
said @ 5:17am GMT on 9th Mar
Should he keep a picture to remind him? |
|
arctan
said @ 6:04am GMT on 8th Mar
[Score:2]
Jesus Christ dude, this article is written in *response* to people like you. The whole thing gets rolling with transpeople saying "Hey, I'm a girl, I'd appreciate it if you treated me as such" and people like you going "HOLY SHIT I have never dealt with this in real life but it sounds SO UNREASONABLE" and going off on your goddamn tirade. And throwing really rude and obnoxious shit in there too about how people are "valid" or "invalid" as targets of attraction for you and making it into this huge production about how very very important it is that a girl be fuckable to be a girl. Do you ever think about why, if transpeople do get tetchy about these things, it's because they've taken a truly tremendous amount of shit in their lives for being trans and this is understandable and not something you, as someone who has evidently gone through your ENTIRE LIFE not actually being affected in any personal way by this issue, have much of a right to be pissed about in return? What is this persecution complex you're wearing anyway. If you do "sir" a transwoman and she decides as a result of it that she's offended and doesn't like you very much, is that such a big deal for you? Is you defending your niceness and decency and goodness so much more goddamn important than the other person's emotions? Newsflash: You aren't getting "lumped in" with people who, say, gangrape and brutally murder transpeople. If transpeople "lumped in" all insensitive clods out there with terrifying murderers they could never leave their homes. You are saying something offensive and reaping the consequences of it. If you accidentally call a girl by your ex's name and she decides she doesn't like you because of it -- well, tough breaks for you. Might not be your fault but maybe think before you speak next time. You don't get to call her out on somehow being a bitch because you said something that hurt her feelings and that affected her opinion of you. There's a whole generation of elderly white Southerners now passing away who found calling black people "sir" and "ma'am" as opposed to "boy" and "girl" went against everything they were taught as children. It's not the "fault" of some centenarian for calling a black person "boy", per se, but the black person has every right to get miffed and let this affect their decision whether they want to hang around that person. Well if that's how it really happens out there with real people, then awesome, that's exactly what I'm asking for. Sanity and the realization that we're all human. I would point out that being willing to forgive human error is predicated on the idea that it is human error that comes from an intention of respect. I would say that if you ever actually do meet a transwoman in real life and she has any backbone that she won't tolerate you leading off with a really offensive rant about how "I DON'T CARE ABOUT YOUR GENDER" like the one you graced us with here, so you should probably avoid saying pompous shit like that if you want to be treated like a friend who is only human. |
|
Moleculor
said @ 8:25am GMT on 8th Mar
"Hey, I'm a girl, I'd appreciate it if you treated me as such" And I have no problem *giving it a try* but a metric fuck-ton of a problem with people getting upset with me *and classifying me as a hate-crime supporting individual* for getting it wrong. |
|
azazel
said @ 10:20am GMT on 8th Mar
But since you have no actual experience with transpeople, how do you know this? |
|
Moleculor
said @ 10:40am GMT on 8th Mar
How do I know WHAT? That I'd be willing to try? Because I'm ME. That I'd be shouted at for forgetting? Well, that's what this and many articles give me the impression of (some in this thread say it's not true and reality isn't nearly so sensitive). That I'd forget? I regularly call my boss her wrong name. I've called her two other names this last month ALONE, and I've been working with her for over a year, known her for five+. I regularly screw up other people's NAMES, so you damn well better believe I'd end up screwing up (repeatedly) someone's preferred pronoun. |
|
azazel
said @ 11:20am GMT on 8th Mar
How do you know that they'll start shouting at you for getting it wrong once in a while? If you make an honest effort, I bet most (if not all) would let the mistakes slide. I think you're too sensitive to this shit. If you honestly call women who have male attributes with male pronouns, you might have some deeper issues. Because that's pretty much what you're saying: if a woman looks like a man, you might call her 'him'. |
|
arctan
said @ 3:00pm GMT on 8th Mar
Some people are just bad with names, and they sometimes get unfairly judged as disrespectful or callous or unaware because of it. I'm opposed to that. But it's only an unfair judgment if you actually do respect them enough to actually make the effort and still fail. If you actively state that you do not give a shit what anyone is named and you wish people would just let you call them "Hey you ", then you really are disrespectful and should be judged for it. It's even worse when you say that some people just look like they're named Adam even when they're named Walter and you reserve the right to call your friend Walter Adam because he's "physically" an Adam and to you the name on his drivers license is just meaningless social construction. |
|
Dissonant
said @ 4:28pm GMT on 8th Mar
I seriously doubt that "I DON'T CARE ABOUT YOUR GENDER" will be the rant that Moleculor will give upon talking to a transwoman for the first time. It certainly wasn't mine (although, to be fair, I'm better at pronouns than he is). I think it's more a defensive reaction to some people whose sole mission in life is just to get impressively, self-righteously angry about things, and use the fact that they're arguing for compassion and social justice (which are good things, naturally) as basically an excuse to shit all over people who they decide (usually because the other person isn't educated/socially aware enough to avoid misunderstandings) are horrible and insensitive (which is, IMO, less good). |
|
arctan
said @ 9:08pm GMT on 8th Mar
Moleculor has virtually met skainsmate here in this community, skainsmate has, I think, been pretty forthright and thorough in talking about why being hit with "he" and "sir" and whatnot hurts her and why she wishes people would stop, and Moleculor nonetheless chose to make this conversation all about himself and his issues and worrying that he will somehow be oppressed by hordes of angry shouting transwomen for making an innocent mistake. "I DON'T CARE ABOUT YOUR GENDER" is one of the most insensitive ways I can think of to respond to something like skainsmate's complaints and yet Moleculor has chosen to double down on it. (And not doing it by saying "It's hard, okay, so don't get upset at me if I fuck up!" but by saying "It's hard, okay, so DON'T MAKE ME DO IT!" I cannot again stress how different the two of these are. I would like to see one person in this conversation who at any point said people should be raked over the coals for innocently fucking it up.) The reason people bring up the word "privilege" all the time in these discussions is exactly this, that people like Moleculor act like the fear of being mistreated by a vanishingly small percentage of the population -- he's never even met a transwoman IRL before, for Christ's sake -- is this huge overwhelming societal problem that's just as big a deal as the problem transwomen themselves face. I think it's more a defensive reaction to some people whose sole mission in life is just to get impressively, self-righteously angry about things, and use the fact that they're arguing for compassion and social justice (which are good things, naturally) as basically an excuse to shit all over people who they decide (usually because the other person isn't educated/socially aware enough to avoid misunderstandings) are horrible and insensitive (which is, IMO, less good). If Moleculor had innocently accidentally referred to skainsmate as "him", and been corrected, and been sorry, I doubt very much there'd've been any issue. We are all attacking a straw transwoman here. She may exist out there in the world, sure, and is probably that way because of some real deep bitterness caused by some real bad shit she went through. But she's not here and she's certainly not everywhere and I don't think this specific situation -- "I am a well-intentioned straight guy who received *rudeness* from some random transwoman!" -- is nearly big enough a deal to turn into the kind of federal case Moleculor has. And that's completely leaving aside the way Moleculor has chosen to present his case, which I hope we can agree was pretty badly chosen and designed to stomp on people's toes. The whole "I see SEX, not GENDER" thing -- i.e. the idea that there is a "real" gender called "sex" that Moleculor can infallibly correctly detect -- is pretty much guaranteed to piss off a transperson if you keep shoving it in their face. |
|
Dissonant
said @ 9:30pm GMT on 8th Mar
Er, what? I think you're misreading him a little here. Where did he say "DON'T MAKE ME DO IT" instead of "I'll try, but I'll probably fuck up, and I don't want to get raked over the coals for it"? Maybe I missed it, but I had thought he was speaking in the context of the article, and previous articles he's read, and how it made him feel, which I have to confess I can identify with a little bit (though not about trans issues). And yes, people are raked over the coals for innocently fucking it up. It's blessedly rare, absent the "straw transwoman" you talk about (who isn't really that "straw", but whatever), but it happens, and even if it didn't, it's a real fear. It's a fear I had before meeting a transwoman for the first time and realized how forgiving 99.9% of them are, believe me. It's a fear coming from wanting to be seen as respectful. Or am I reading too much of myself into this? I do that sometimes. Yeah, if Moleculor had used the wrong pronoun and been corrected, that's one thing, but this conversation is based on the context of the original article, and those kinds of articles are easy to misinterpret as being harsher than they're meant to be. We'll have to agree to disagree on the whole "I have received rudeness" thing... I have been suicidal over such things before, and I know there are more people like me out there. I agree that the "straw" transwoman deserves compassion and understanding rather than anger, but that doesn't stop the fear from being there. And as for the last paragraph, I really think you're reading that wrong. I don't understand where Moleculor said he could "infallibly detect" anything. Rather, he doesn't appear to understand the signifiers that most of us take for granted (hence my question about the autistic spectrum). YMMV, of course. I have to go now. More later. Sorry. |
|
blindnerd
said @ 10:02pm GMT on 8th Mar
[Score:2 Informative]
He used a few more words but I'd be happy to hear how this can be taken as anything other than "I'm going to call you what I'm going to call you, deal with it". "I suggest that that tiny minority do what the entire rest of the planet does and be comfortable with themselves without relying on others to alter their behavior to do so." |
|
Moleculor
said @ 11:00pm GMT on 8th Mar
That 'tiny minority' is... A person who appears to be one sex. A person who prefers the other gender. A person who flips-out-and-screams when someone gets it wrong by accident, despite making attempts to get it right. What's unreasonable about that? |
|
skainsmate
said @ 11:17pm GMT on 8th Mar
The expectation that we understand you meant "a person who flips-out-and-screams when someone gets it wrong by accident, despite making attempts to get it right." Please admit you spoke carelessly. If you won't apologize for this, how are we supposed to believe you apologize any other time you misspeak? |
|
Moleculor
said @ 11:25pm GMT on 8th Mar
The context of that statement was in reference to If they look like a male, and I say 'he', and they get bent 'round the axle because of one single letter... well... sorry, That's a direct quote from what I wrote just two posts above it in that thread. I thought the context would be clear. If that was not clear enough, then I must have spoken carelessly. Which is damn easy to do. Sorry about that, but that was the group I intended to refer to. |
|
skainsmate
said @ 11:34pm GMT on 8th Mar
We're discussing transgendered issues; you can't use the phrase "tiny minority" and expect us to understand you mean someone who is in that tiny minority and ALSO is flipping the fuck out. What you said, to anyone not inside your brain, was "If they look male, and I say he, and it bothers them, they should get over it." However, you have apologized, so yay. You suck at communicating, by the way. Let's not do this again. |
|
Moleculor
said @ 11:47pm GMT on 8th Mar
You suck at communicating, by the way. Let's not do this again. But how will I ever get better at it? :( |
|
skainsmate
said @ 11:51pm GMT on 8th Mar
Practice apologizing first. |
|
Moleculor
said @ 12:00am GMT on 9th Mar
I apologize when it becomes evident I need to. I didn't understand why people were flipping the fuck out until about 15 minutes ago. I then apologized for being unclear. So what, exactly, was wrong with my apology? |
|
Naruki
said @ 12:41am GMT on 9th Mar
It needs more cow bell. |
|
Moleculor
said @ 1:02am GMT on 9th Mar
Oh. Ok. That makes sense then. |
|
skainsmate
said @ 1:28am GMT on 9th Mar
[Score:1 Insightful]
It came after being asked to apologize. Multiple times. |
|
blindnerd
said @ 11:20pm GMT on 8th Mar
If that is actually what you meant you are terrible at expressing your ideas clearly. |
|
Moleculor
said @ 11:34pm GMT on 8th Mar
I *am* terrible at expressing my ideas clearly. I know that. It's related to my problem with names, I believe, and it's one of the reasons that my Fetlife post took me SIX MONTHS to write to the point that I was comfortable enough to put it on the web. I'm shit-terrible at communication, especially in real time. |
|
Dissonant
said @ 11:22pm GMT on 8th Mar
[Score:1 Underrated]
Several things, but the most unreasonable is that there's a whole bunch of people who would not flip out but would still be uncomfortable, and the vast majority would hide it in order to not make you feel bad. And that "brain reprogramming" stuff you mention that's so onerous and difficult? Turns out that's called "practice", which you get by either getting things right or screwing up and then apologizing when you do. There's nothing more to it than that, believe it or not. You may not have realized that by deciding you're "not going to reprogram anything" you're implying that you aren't going to refer to people by the correct pronoun, but that is what you were implying, even if you didn't mean to. I now understand where the others are coming from when they tell you you "don't want to change", because that is kind of what you said, even if you didn't mean it. |
|
Moleculor
said @ 11:35pm GMT on 8th Mar
And that "brain reprogramming" stuff you mention that's so onerous and difficult? Turns out that's called "practice", which you get by either getting things right or screwing up and then apologizing when you do. There's nothing more to it than that, believe it or not. And it's 'practice' I don't, and may not ever get a chance to try. You may not have realized that by deciding you're "not going to reprogram anything" you're implying that you aren't going to refer to people by the correct pronoun, but that is what you were implying, My intention was to say that I wasn't going to reprogram the way I view 100% of the population for 1% of it. Not that I wasn't going to try. |
|
skainsmate
said @ 11:48pm GMT on 8th Mar
"My intention was to say that I wasn't going to [do _______ ]. Not that I wasn't going to try." How did you manage to say that without tripping on the contradiction? |
|
Moleculor
said @ 11:54pm GMT on 8th Mar
Ok, clarification: I'm not going to completely reprogram the entire way my brain works for 100% of the population to protect myself from a person who's going to jump down my throat for misusing a pronoun. I will try to make a special unique case for them. It probably won't be fool proof, I'll almost certainly fuck up, and will almost certainly go cry in a corner (not really, more just be depressed for a few days) if they flip the fuck out about my fucking it up. Clear enough? |
|
Dissonant
said @ 12:32am GMT on 9th Mar
Again, what about the people who wouldn't flip out, but would just be hurt? Rembember, they're important too. |
|
Moleculor
said @ 1:03am GMT on 9th Mar
Them I have no problem with, and would want to hug them if I wasn't completely aware of how weird I feel when random people touch me. |
|
Dissonant
said @ 11:17pm GMT on 8th Mar
Oops, missed that. Thanks. |
|
Moleculor
said @ 10:10pm GMT on 8th Mar
How the hell do you go from "I'll give it a go, but seeing as how gender is a non-issue for me to the point that when I use pronouns I'm referring to apparent sex, so I'm probably going to fuck up thirty times" to "FUCK YOU AND THE HIGH HORSE YOU RODE IN ON, I'LL CALL YOU A FUCKING MAN IF I FEEL LIKE IT" ? Because that's the leap you're making. (And it's this PRECISE level and type of hostility that has me so *fucking* jumpy on this issue.) |
|
skainsmate
said @ 11:05pm GMT on 8th Mar
I suspect you fear such hostility because your infuriating defensiveness and refusal to concede a single point draws it out of people. Honestly, the way you've acted throughout this post makes me doubt you'd apologize to the theoretical trans person. But I'm not you, so I guess I'm wrong about that too. |
|
Dissonant
said @ 11:30pm GMT on 8th Mar
I take issue with this analysis. I can sympathize with that fear of hostility, as I had the same fear before I met my first trans person, and still do in a lot of other social situations. I ended up getting along great with her. The defensiveness and refusal would have been there in the first place, and that came from the fear of hostility, which in turn came from being raised in a psychologically and physically abusive environment. Point is, if I had fucked up, I would have apologized until I was blue in the face, and that doesn't mean that I wouldn't have been defensive in a situation like this. Just my 2 cents. |
|
skainsmate
said @ 11:40pm GMT on 8th Mar
You're right. I was reading too much into his frustrating behavior. |
|
Moleculor
said @ 4:54pm GMT on 8th Mar
If you make an honest effort, I bet most (if not all) would let the mistakes slide. And as I've stated elsewhere and you clearly missed before something I said triggered your unresolved issues, that'd be GREAT, and that's all I'm asking for: Sanity and humanity, rather than holding everyone to some perfect-fucking-ideal and calling them a trans-phobe if they fall short. |
|
GordonGuano
said @ 10:35am GMT on 8th Mar
[Score:5 Insightful]
Y'know, this was a pretty respectable post until you came in with your chip on your shoulder and your "fuck you so much". It seemed like we were working toward a somewhat productive dialogue, in a fairly productive manner up to that point. When you attacked Moleculor as he was in the process of developing his idea in a better direction, he got defensive, said a few things that were not as well thought-out, which was your cue to pounce and twist his words to extremes they weren't meant to go. It turned into a game of over-reaction tennis. I'm not saying you don't have some valid insights and I'm not trying to discourage your input. I guess what I'd like to ask you is...does your troll dojo accept apprentices? Because I would love to study at the feet of a master. |
|
arctan
said @ 3:10pm GMT on 8th Mar
"Fuck you so much" was directed at a.talisan, who was on fact being way more offensive and fucked up than Moleculor to a degree where someone absolutely needed to call her on it and I'm shocked no one did. And I do think it may be because people think "All women are whiny sex objects" is somehow more okay from a lesbian than a straight guy, which, no. As far as me strolling by and attacking Moleculor, the point where I came in was the point where he was saying "Hey, if they tolerate me being a jerk then trans people aren't so bad". He was taking "Not all trans people are hair trigger indignation junkies" as "My callousness and self-centered priorities here are fine", which I think is a highly unuseful consensus to hone in on. In any case you have your timeline somewhat messed up. I came into this conversation fairly late and well after Moleculor had been digging himself in deep for a while with unfortunate phrases like "valid target of sexual attraction" or whatever. For the record I think it's clear Moleculor is somewhat obtuse but not actively trans phobic in the way a.talisan is with her "I think transwomen just want attention for being pretty" theory. I'd be willing to hold out hope that if Moleculor actually made a real live trans friend IRL he'd stop saying shitty hurtful things. I meanwhile think a.talisan's issues obviously go much deeper and that she should probably just fuck off. |
|
Moleculor
said @ 4:57pm GMT on 8th Mar
phrases like "valid target of sexual attraction" or whatever You left out the very important, very intentional "FOR ME" part of that phrase. Men and trees also fall into that category, and I'm pretty damn sure most guys aren't going to get offended if I tell him I don't want to fuck him. |
|
arrowhen
said @ 3:18am GMT on 9th Mar
I'll have you know my tree is locked in its room crying its eyes out right now, you insensitive jerk! |
|
happiest_sadist
said @ 5:14am GMT on 9th Mar
[Score:1 Funny]
Heh... you've got wood. |
|
skainsmate
said @ 1:45pm GMT on 9th Mar
I think they might get offended if a woman told them her lack of desire to fuck them said anything about their masculinity. You used your desire to have sex with someone as a metric for who they are as a person. No one's getting offended about who you want to fuck. They're getting offended by your But you've turned a post attempting to spread awareness and sensitivity into a neverending cycle of you playing the victim and steadfastly clinging to the fact you haven't said anything hurtful instead of "manning up" and admitting that casually grouping transgendered women with men and flora might just be the teensiest bit lkuiasghfukashgfzjsghfJSHegfSKJZgfakjEHgfalfaefhbskjhdfbf I can't keep doing this. You win, Moleculor. Your defensive stubbornness has outlasted my desire to help you understand. |
|
GordonGuano
said @ 7:06pm GMT on 8th Mar
At any event, I'll be out here in the Zen garden for two and a half more days. Hopefully by then you will have gotten the sand out of your vagina and will be ready to join the rest of us in a civil discussion. |
|
Dissonant
said @ 4:40pm GMT on 8th Mar
I was with you until "you[...]don't have as much of a right to be pissed in return". Unless you literally mean that not everyone has an equal right to their emotional state, and people literally should not feel emotions you disagree with, you might want to find a more effective way of saying that. |
|
Dissonant
said @ 4:58pm GMT on 8th Mar
[Score:1 Insightful]
Also, What is this persecution complex you're wearing anyway. If you do "sir" a transwoman and she decides as a result of it that she's offended and doesn't like you very much, is that such a big deal for you? Is you defending your niceness and decency and goodness so much more goddamn important than the other person's emotions? For some people, it is, yes, because they're personally invested in being a compassionate person, and some people going off on a rant and telling them they're part of the problem and thus, yes, lumping them in with people who assault transwomen (not confusing the two, those are different) and going off on their own tirades are hurtful. Understandable, certainly, but hurtful nonetheless, especially as it does sometimes come from a position of respect. Despite your apparent willingness to believe that even most people know (or care) whether a mistake is coming from a person with a position of respect or not, I've seen far too many counterexamples to agree with you. But if I slip up, and someone calls me an asshole, or maybe punches or slaps me, and I then turn around and (after apologizing and explaining) ask them to "maybe think before you speak next time", that would be problematic (and no, I'm not being sarcastic here, I really believe it would be), because of the shit you mentioned that they've had to deal with in their lives. So, it's tough not to feel a little persecuted. |
|
Moleculor
said @ 5:07pm GMT on 8th Mar
For some people, it is, yes, because they're personally invested in being a compassionate person, and some people going off on a rant and telling them they're part of the problem and thus, yes, lumping them in with people who assault transwomen (not confusing the two, those are different) and going off on their own tirades are hurtful. This, this, a thousand times this. I fucking LIKE being nice to people. To give an example, this has translated into me being so-fucking-good at customer service in my job that I'm up for some sort've $800 reward (didn't find out about it until my name had already been submitted), and I'm the one guy out of 120+ people that the store director chose to try for it. I fall over my fucking self to try and help people out, and to be told that because I might make a mistake in identifying or remembering a special-case pronoun, I'm now on the same level as the redneck that puts people into hospitals because of how they look? Fuck that. |
|
Dissonant
said @ 8:56pm GMT on 8th Mar
[Score:2 Good]
Er, no. That's not what I'm getting at at all. I have to disagree with you on several levels. 1) Look, the fact is, you've never met a transwoman. Before I did, I was worried about this too, but I was surprised at how easy it is. Despite your fears, you may actually not encounter a problem. I have taken the opportunity to discuss this with my transwoman friends before, and believe me, they're sane, rational people who don't consider it a Berserk Button. I'm willing to bet that 99% of the transwomen you meet will understand if you apologize right away. And yes, I feel an apology would be necessary in that situation, and so should you. If all you're arguing for is sanity, and you really care about people, you'll agree with me. And 99% of the time, that will be enough, unless she's having a bad day or something, and in that case it isn't about you. And don't think about these articles in that case (see below). 2) If how you describe yourself is true, I'm sorry, but you're not like most people. That sucks, and I feel bad for you, but you have an uphill battle trying to get people to understand where you're coming from. Thing is, the number of people you might accidentally offend by forgetting the wrong pronoun is nothing compared to the number of people who intentionally offend transwomen by (at best) using the wrong pronoun and being an asshole about it. I hate to make this comparison, but I have to say that they're a hell of a lot worse off than you are. 3) I am not a fan of your tone. It causes me to wonder whether you're sincere in your "Oh, I just can't tell genders apart" message. Yeah, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but see #2. 4) The thing you have to realize about these articles is that you're not being "put on the same level" as that redneck, you're being identified as part of the same social construct as that redneck, which, to be honest, you kind of are (I'll take your word for it that it's an accident). This is NOT saying you're "as bad as" him, or that you might be "confused" with him, simply that it's part of the same societal shit that transwomen deal with. So yes, an ice cube is cold, and the blackness of space is cold, but this does not mean that the two are confused all that much. So should you realize that on a scale of 1 to 10 of transphobia, you're not a 9 or a 10, and you shouldn't feel that people are saying you're "no different" than 9s or 10s. This is the biggest thing to take away. I had real trouble reading most feminist articles, for example, until I realized that referring to things under the same bailiwick was not equating them. You, who forget accidentally, are unintentionally part of the problem, but that doesn 't mean that by continuing to be understanding and respectful, you can't intentionally be part of the solution. I am pretty sure you know this. 5) The thing is, you know your tendency to forget things like this, so if you ever meet a transwoman, you know what you should do? TELL THEM. Say "Hey, I realize that your gender is important to you, and I realize what bullshit you put up with and I don't want to add to the pile, but I seem to have this problem with forgetting people's names and other things, and somehow for me that translates into gender pronouns, so I want to say straight out that I might sometimes forget to call you a "she" instead of a "he", and I want you to know now that if I do, it's not intentional, because I respect you as a person and as a woman." See? Because then there's no problem. In fact, you'll probably make a friend for life. I hope this helps. |
|
skainsmate
said @ 10:58pm GMT on 8th Mar
[Score:1 Informative]
I'm here to collect that hug, Dissonant. :) |
|
Dissonant
said @ 11:37pm GMT on 8th Mar
[Score:1 Informative]
*hug* Thank you for letting me do that. It means a lot to me. Good luck putting up with more of this shit in the future, and if you ever want an ear that tries its best to by sympathetic over PM or something (I'm not perfect, but I'll try), then don't hesitate, OK? Take care. |
|
arctan
said @ 9:15pm GMT on 8th Mar
This is a gigantic strawman. I keep trying to make analogies to make this clear. No one is going to call you a phobe for accidentally getting it wrong. They will call you an asshole for declaring you shouldn't be expected to even try to get it right. Look -- you're bad with names, yes? Does that mean you're an evil, horrible person for screwing up someone's name? No. You apologize and move on. People might look at you funny if you're really so handicapped that you can *never* remember someone's name no matter how well you know them, but mostly it's not a big deal. On the other hand, if you act like you're going to be tarred and feathered for ever screwing up someone's name at all even the slightest bit AND THEN use that as justification for some kind of entitled rant saying "Names are bullshit! I don't see why I have to know names! Why can't people just be happy being called whatever name I choose to give them?", then you're an ass. Are you getting this? Even this article doesn't say anyone is evil for *accidentally getting the pronoun wrong* -- it says people are assholes for *intentionally not caring if they get it right*. How do you actually deal with the name situation? I bet it's *not* by posting rants on the Internet about how all names are just made up anyway and therefore people should let you call them whatever name you choose to call them. |
|
b
said @ 11:25pm GMT on 7th Mar
It's not quite so cut and dry though. There's a person in my work organization who's a woman, but dresses very mannish, has a masculine hairstyle and afaik, dates women. However, this person has not had any surgeries or hormone treatments that I know of. So I perceive this person as a butch lesbian. I have no idea if she is or not. Maybe she's a pre-op transman? I don't know and s/he hasn't gone out of her way to inform people. I referred to this person as "she" in a staff communication log and then later on kind of worried about it. It was kind of a stressful situation because this person was the project manager of the project I was working at. There was no fallout, no discussion, no gentle word aside to me from anyone, so I guess I didn't faux pas, but still... unless people go around saying "refer to me as x" how are we to know? And really, if everyone went around saying "btw, please use x pronoun for me" it would quickly grow tiresome. |
|
theolypse
said @ 12:53am GMT on 8th Mar
But when generous estimates are <1% of the population, it's probably safe to just make assumptions like you did, and graciously oblige in those rare cases when you will be asked to adapt. |
|
blindnerd
said @ 9:54pm GMT on 7th Mar
Yeah, but there favorite band/animal/colour etc probably isn't going to get them fired or alienated from their family. You might not care if some is trans or not, but a lot of people do -- to the point that they will go out of their way to harm someone for transitioning. The way to change that isn't to shrug your shoulders and say "whatever, live and let live". Active support in order to change societal attitudes has been incredibly important in combating sexism, racism, and homophobia. It will be just as important in fighting transphobia. If you'd rather stay out of it, fine, that's your right but if you are going to compare gender identification to something as trivial favorite colour, you really doing more harm than good. |
|
Moleculor
said @ 10:48pm GMT on 7th Mar
If you'd rather stay out of it, fine, that's your right but if you are going to compare gender identification to something as trivial favorite colour, you really doing more harm than good. So you're saying my genderlessness and genderless perspective is somehow invalid? I don't see gender. I can see what someone's trying to present, usually, if they're good at it, but my brain sees SEX, not gender. |
|
foobar
said @ 10:53pm GMT on 7th Mar
So call people by what they're trying to present. And maybe take a cold shower? I don't know. |
|
Moleculor
said @ 11:02pm GMT on 7th Mar
So call people by what they're trying to present. Did you not see the part where I said "if they're good at it"? Perhaps I should have bolded the word 'good'. They have to be very, very good to bypass the ingrained patterns of kinesthetic thought that identify sexual phenotype. |
|
blindnerd
said @ 11:18pm GMT on 7th Mar
[Score:1 Funny]
Word on the street is that after Molecular's Grandmother grew a post-menopausal moustache he become convinced that he had two grandfathers. |
|
Moleculor
said @ 1:31am GMT on 8th Mar
Well, considering memory fuels most of what we see, if I were to suffer a blow to the head and then meet her again after raising her from the dead, and her obtaining some serious cosmetic surgery, sure, the mustache on top might make me see a male. |
|
arctan
said @ 6:13am GMT on 8th Mar
Since it is actually really damn common for people who are completely "naturally" female with XX chromosomes to have facial hair and women who care about their appearance often have to go through all kinds of shit to remove or minimize it (I had a friend -- completely "real" cis woman friend, for the record -- who suffered from terrible blisters and irritation caused by various "remedies" for her upper lip hair until she finally just decided "fuck it") that is a strong indication you do not in fact see "sex". If you saw "sex" that would mean you had a scanner that saw the XX chromosomes and, seeing the XX chromosomes, were satisfied. Or that you went specifically looking for the vagina or something. You see something that's only *kind of* associated with whether you're XX or XY and you fixate on it to ridiculous extremes. Just like there's probably tons of cisgender XX women you reject because their chins are too big or their eyebrows too prominent or their voices too alto, even though that's all within the range of what is not just possible but likely with "real" XX chromosomes. That's not sex, in other words, that's gender. Sex makes the bell curve for women's body mass to be to the left of men's; gender is what makes women starve themselves to look skinnier and more attractive and men take steroids and supplements to try to bulk up. Sex is what makes women likely to have *less* body hair than men; gender is what makes women wax and nair and all that shit. Etc., etc., etc. Your hyper hair-trigger "Kinsey scale 0! ZERO I TELL YOU!" nonsense isn't because you're "gender-blind", it's because you're incredibly sensitive to gender, and also apparently deeply insecure about it, so much so that what you perceive as a mismatch of gender traits -- facial hair plus tits, say -- doesn't just not-give-you-a-boner but somehow upsets you. (Again, why just not getting a boner should be upsetting or revolting -- I mean, plenty of things don't give me boners that I quite like, like animals, bodies of water, clouds, math, reggae music -- speaks to something repressed here.) |
|
Moleculor
said @ 8:36am GMT on 8th Mar
It's more of a facial structure thing. Voices. Who said anything about facial hair? A little lip fuzz isn't the end of the world. |
|
azazel
said @ 10:23am GMT on 8th Mar
You don't get boners from math? What the hell is wrong with you? |
|
eIfish
said @ 4:22pm GMT on 8th Mar
[Score:1 Insightful]
Actually, humans are really, really, really, really, really good at determining the sex of another human correctly, be it from a great distance, in silhouette, at a passing glance, in a crowd, or obscured by an object. The ones that couldn't didn't breed. |
|
lilmookieesquire
said @ 7:46pm GMT on 8th Mar
But they had a hell of a fun time trying. |
|
arctan
said @ 9:17pm GMT on 8th Mar
You're telling me you've worked, say, in retail for long hours for a good chunk of your life and you've *never* accidentally "sir"ed a woman because she happened to be broad-shouldered, short-haired and viewed from the back? And then had to frantically apologize because even though it was entirely innocent, that's still something you apologize for? (Not talking about transwomen here -- outwardly trans people are a vanishingly small percentage of the population. But acting like your gender radar is infallible because it's a magic sense is just dumb.) |
|
theolypse
said @ 1:35am GMT on 9th Mar
I get called a woman all the time because I have long hair. I have thin hips and broad shoulders and a goatee. |
|
azazel
said @ 4:09am GMT on 8th Mar
I thought you hadn't had any person-to-person experience with transgendered people? Are you talking about crossdressers now? |
|
Moleculor
said @ 4:33am GMT on 8th Mar
I know a crossdresser. He absolutely does *not* look female, even with the bald head covered by a wig, makeup, dress, etc. Other people around me all talk about how pretty he is, etc etc, as if to them he appears female. To me, he does not. It's not about the clothes, makeup, hair, etc. It's about skeletal structure, for example. |
|
blindnerd
said @ 4:52am GMT on 8th Mar
[Score:1 Informative]
Really? Cross dressing and being trans are two completely different things. The difference is rather fundamental. At this point you are comparing apples to a man in an apple costume. |
|
Moleculor
said @ 5:01pm GMT on 8th Mar
Yes, but I can only discuss things I've seen and extrapolate from there. I've seen transsexual people in photographs, and I've seen crossdressers IRL. Both present one gender, one has (usually) subtle things that make my brain go "Waaaaaitaminute..." the other usually ranges from "Obvious" to "Subtle". I'm attempting to extrapolate from there into hypothetical situations, and take an educated guess. |
|
blindnerd
said @ 7:06pm GMT on 8th Mar
[Score:1 Insightful]
No, just no, stop right there. Cross dressers are not trying to "present" as the other gender, they are dressing as the other gender, which is a world apart. If you are being honest up thread about not wanting to offend people, then I am telling you right now, this is the kind of shit you need to avoid. The fact that you are basically saying "cross dressers and trans people have a superficial similarity so I can assume that my experience with one group would be similiar to an experience with the other" tells me you are ignorant of the issues being discussed. At this point I can only assume that either you haven't bothered to read what Natalie was trying to say or you didn't bother to try and understand it. That lack of understanding is what is going to offend people, not mixing up pronouns. |
|
Moleculor
said @ 7:38pm GMT on 8th Mar
And yet the crossdresser I know also plays with pronoun replacement. So you're wrong about the whole 'presentation' thing. Absolutely some don't, sure, but some do. |
|
KingPellinore
said @ 7:46pm GMT on 8th Mar
Wow, it's almost as if we should treat people as individuals. |
|
blindnerd
said @ 8:04pm GMT on 8th Mar
I don't really care. It's clear that you haven't learned the distinction between cross dressing and being trans. I'm telling you, if you don't want to be considered rude and ignorant, learn why they are different and why it is offensive to mix up the two concepts. |
|
KingPellinore
said @ 8:22pm GMT on 8th Mar
|
|
Dissonant
said @ 9:07pm GMT on 8th Mar
No, that is not clear to me. |
|
Dissonant
said @ 9:08pm GMT on 8th Mar
*No, that is not clear, at least not to me. Damn it. |
|
blindnerd
said @ 9:33pm GMT on 8th Mar
Really? |
|
Dissonant
said @ 9:49pm GMT on 8th Mar
Yes, really. The difference is fundamental from the perspective of the individual, but not from the perspective of knowing whether the person who just appeared in front of you is a crossdresser or a transgendered person. And yes, some crossdressers play with pronouns as well. I agree that this is totally different from a transperson in terms of their internal experience, but it's not different in terms of finding the "correct" pronoun for someone you just met. I'd probably just go with "she" if someone was wearing a dress, just to be on the safe side, but I understand the hesitation that some people have to do so. And asking "Hey, what pronoun should I use to refer to you?" is gauche. This is a far cry from not caring. Yes, he is comparing apples to a man in an apple costume, but I see that as coming from ignorance rather than apathy. (Am I being too forgiving? Maybe so.) |
|
Moleculor
said @ 10:16pm GMT on 8th Mar
So far you seem to be nailing everything. "I don't know, I don't understand" is exactly where I am. |
|
blindnerd
said @ 10:36pm GMT on 8th Mar
No. You do not say: "I suggest that that tiny minority do what the entire rest of the planet does and be comfortable with themselves without relying on others to alter their behavior to do so." And then claim that all you're saying is "I don't know, I don't understand." |
|
Moleculor
said @ 11:11pm GMT on 8th Mar
That 'tiny minority' is... A person who appears to be one sex. A person who prefers the other gender. A person who flips-out-and-screams when someone gets it wrong by accident, despite making attempts to get it right. What's unreasonable about that? |
|
blindnerd
said @ 10:27pm GMT on 8th Mar
Just to clairify, I was talking about him not understanding the difference in the specific, defined concepts of cross dressing vs. being trans. I was not trying to critique his ability to distinguish the two during the first meeting. Also, how often do you have to refer to someone's gender the first time you meet them? There are a hundred ways to be polite and respectful without using "sir" or "ma'am" and I can't think of any other reasons to immediately need to know gender outside of some very specific circumstances. (This is probably more a general question, than addressed to you specifically.) |
|
Dissonant
said @ 11:39pm GMT on 8th Mar
True, but it didn't seem to me that he had trouble distinguishing these concepts. YMMV, though. |
|
azazel
said @ 11:51pm GMT on 8th Mar
I can really only think of one situation where you "need" (and I use that term loosely) to know gender/pronoun: when talking about a third person who you don't know the name of. (Or should that be 'whom you don't know the name of?' -- goddamn English pronouns messing with me all the time.) |
|
happiest_sadist
said @ 12:55am GMT on 9th Mar
[Score:1 Informative]
"Of whom you don't know the name", or possibly "whose name you wot not" if you're feeling poncey; to end a sentence with a preposition is something up with which we shan't put. |
|
Moleculor
said @ 10:43pm GMT on 8th Mar
So you're saying that when I look at someone I should be able to instantly discern whether or not they're transgender or they're crossdressing? Because I'm not sure I could do that. There are some really skilled crossdressers out there that pass quite well, and could easily be confused for being transgender or transsexual. |
|
blindnerd
said @ 10:52pm GMT on 8th Mar
No. That is not at all what I said. |
|
Moleculor
said @ 3:35am GMT on 8th Mar
Oh, I finally get why you mentioned a cold shower. Sex. Physical attributes. Phenotype. As in, the concrete aspects. Gender is esoteric and ephemeral. Srsly, go read my long post hidden in the block thing down below. It explains. |
|
arctan
said @ 6:16am GMT on 8th Mar
I think he got your number better than you'll admit, since you don't seem to admit that there's any actual difference between "valid source of sexual attraction" and "female" in your universe. I'm a straight guy but I can easily admit that "feminine" and "attractive to me" are two different things that are only loosely related to each other. The fact that you insist on treating them as synonymous is problematic, and leads to you saying a lot of things that are borderline creepy and/or obnoxious. |
|
Moleculor
said @ 8:31am GMT on 8th Mar
since you don't seem to admit that there's any actual difference between "valid source of sexual attraction" and "female" in your universe. Uh, what? There are plenty of women I don't find attractive. Hell, there are plenty of what other people call "butch" women I find attractive. Traits that I identify as "masculine", however (me, personally) push things towards "not interested". Who knows. Maybe I'm misattributing "masculine" to "traits I find unattractive", but the traits I find unattractive I most often see in the faces of men. If it's going to make everyone more comfortable that I just say "ugly" or whatever, should I be doing that instead? |
|
azazel
said @ 10:26am GMT on 8th Mar
Why do you have to label shit? If it's not attractive to you, just let it be instead? You don't HAVE to sort everyone into neat "attractive, would fuck" and "not attractive, wouldn't fuck" folders in your head, you know. |
|
Moleculor
said @ 10:43am GMT on 8th Mar
just let it be instead? I'd let it be if people wouldn't shout at me for forgetting to use or not use an s. Like I keep saying: It's not a big deal to me. So long as they don't make a big deal of it too, everyone gets along. |
|
azazel
said @ 11:17am GMT on 8th Mar
I think it's a huge deal to you, given the post we're greeted by and your insistence that you should be able to stomp on trans people's feelings without any concern. |
|
azazel
said @ 11:35am GMT on 8th Mar
Okay, that was uncalled for. Do people shout at you if you forget? It's not that hard, really -- if they dress like a woman, address them like a woman. If they ask to be addressed like man, make an effort. If you slip up every now and then, chances are they'll let it slide, especially if you apologize. I forget names all the time. Even the names of close friends. The people that know me knows this, so we can laugh it off. If I'm introduced to someone, I will probably say something like "Sorry, I forgot your name" and I've had no problems with it. |
|
arctan
said @ 3:54pm GMT on 8th Mar
Uh, what? There are plenty of women I don't find attractive. And do you call all of them "he"? That's my issue here. If a woman being ugly means you think you ought to get to call them "he" and not apologize for it, you're probably already in a world of shit and would be facing hostility all the time even if there was no such thing as a trans person in the universe. I'm assuming therefore that this isn't actually that big a deal to you and you've blown up this into a huge thing that it isn't. You're not going to have David Hasselhoff walk up to you in a muscle shirt and ask to be called "she"just for the hell of it. You keep saying you know no trans people; do you know that for a fact? It could be one of the girls you just think of as somewhat butch is trans and, for obvious reasons, hasn't chosen to tell you. Hell, maybe one of your hot femme friends is trans -- you claim to have amazing transdar but how would you actually know? Who's checking your answers? |
|
theolypse
said @ 5:44pm GMT on 8th Mar
It was skainsmate what made that last claim, Guvnah. |
|
arctan
said @ 9:25pm GMT on 8th Mar
Skainsmate used the term "transdar", but this conversation is pretty much revolving around Moleculor's claim that 1) The essential physical masculinity of a transwoman is so obvious that he cannot help but notice it and be blinded by it looking at one, 2) The power of this perception of masculinity is so great it overwhelms other cues like clothing, self-presentation, or open requests to use a certain pronoun (i.e. Moleculor is "blind to gender" because he sees "sex" so clearly), and 3) Therefore asking Moleculor to exert the mental effort to use the pronoun "she" for someone whose slightly broader-than-usual shoulders take over his brain and scream "MALE MALE MALE MALE" at him is unfair and causes him great emotional distress. All of this is predicated on the idea that Moleculor's finely honed maleness detector is that powerful in the first place. I submit that he doesn't actually have any way of knowing that this is the case and that, hell, he may actually already know some transwomen and not know they're trans, which makes all the more absurd his insistence that asking him to close his eyes to a transwoman's obvious maleness is impossible. |
|
Moleculor
said @ 10:39pm GMT on 8th Mar
You're taking me talking about a hypothetical situation in which someone *to me* looks obviously one thing, but *to them* they're something else, and expanding it to include *all cases of transgender existence regardless of appearance*. Which is bullshit. |
|
Moleculor
said @ 6:09pm GMT on 8th Mar
And do you call all of them "he"? No. Obviously. |
|
arctan
said @ 9:21pm GMT on 8th Mar
So then don't call transwomen "he" either. They're women, they're just women who are (to you) ugly. Unless you want to date them I honestly do not see where there is a real problem here. |
|
Moleculor
said @ 10:17pm GMT on 8th Mar
I obviously won't if it's obvious they want to be called she. If it's not obvious, I may fuck up. I would prefer not to be labeled a trans-shaming bigot for doing so. How hard is this to understand? |
|
blindnerd
said @ 10:58pm GMT on 8th Mar
99.9% of people will not call you a transphobic bigot for accidentally getting a pronoun wrong. However, people will call you a bigot for saying shit like: "I suggest that that tiny minority do what the entire rest of the planet does and be comfortable with themselves without relying on others to alter their behavior to do so." |
|
Moleculor
said @ 11:16pm GMT on 8th Mar
That 'tiny minority' is... A person who appears to be one sex. A person who prefers the other gender. A person who flips-out-and-screams when someone gets it wrong by accident, despite making attempts to get it right. What's unreasonable about that? |
|
azazel
said @ 11:53pm GMT on 8th Mar
Do you honestly not see how your statement looks? |
|
spite48
said @ 8:57pm GMT on 7th Mar
Also, as a society, we probably don't need pronouns that refer to gender at all anymore. |
|
foobar
said @ 9:11pm GMT on 7th Mar
We don't need shirts that button one way for men and another for women, but we still have them. |
|
spite48
said @ 10:34pm GMT on 7th Mar
Yes. That is true. I'm not following your point though. |
|
foobar
said @ 10:41pm GMT on 7th Mar
[Score:1 Insightful]
Sometimes a change is just too much effort. I'm typing this on a keyboard layout that was designed to keep me from typing fast enough to jam a manual typewriter. If you insist on the world making sense you're going to create a lot of frustration for yourself. |
|
azazel
said @ 4:11am GMT on 8th Mar
That's incorrect. QWERTY, which I assume you're using, was designed to avoid jamming while typing at speed. Some of the design decisions does, however, hobble speeds on modern keyboards. |
|
blibblob
said @ 4:48am GMT on 8th Mar
And as someone who's been typing in dvorak for almost a decade now and who still regularly uses qwerty at work, the speed differences are purely in how fast your fingers are. Duh. But seriously, I'll argue alternating hands when typing helps reduce carpal tunnel issues, but speed has nothing to do with it. It's a fun little myth perpetuated by the bias one has after reteaching the muscle memory, but it's a silly as complaining that a piano is laid out to keep normal people from playing like Art Tatum. Speed while typing, or playing guitar, piano, sax, whatever is in twitch muscle speed and mental coordination, not layout. |
|
azazel
said @ 10:29am GMT on 8th Mar
A lot of the 'studies' and tests done on whether dvorak is faster than qwerty were flawed or biased to begin with. Maybe you're right in that it can reduce carpal tunnel issues -- I haven't read anything about it, and I'm not sure there's been any studies on it either. There are a few papers available on whether dvorak is ergonomically better than qwerty, and they seem to say that no, it's not. And yes, you're absolutely right. The world's first touch typist said so as well: a fast typer will be fast on both layouts, a slow typer will be slow on both. |
|
blibblob
said @ 5:44pm GMT on 8th Mar
Studies of it would be interesting, but I had some pretty serious carpal tunnel problems before switching. Serious enough that after an essay or something I'd have enough pain I couldn't really use my hands. Now, no issues. Not really even tinges of it. And I think it's having one hand primarily dedicated to vowels and one to consonants that did it, so I can't type long words and phrases with just one hand. |
|
azazel
said @ 7:46pm GMT on 8th Mar
I will admit to not having researched the ergonomical pros and cons of dvorak vs qwerty in great detail, but good for you! I don't have any problems with using qwerty (not that I've ever tried dvorak), but if I get them in the future I will keep this in mind and give it a shot. |
|
hellboy
said @ 7:18am GMT on 8th Mar
We do too need gendered shirts. It's so you can flash each other while you're driving. (And we all know women can't drive!) |
|
skainsmate
said @ 4:56pm GMT on 7th Mar
[Score:1 Interesting]
I appreciate your forthrightness. If you don't mind me exploring your feelings, does the following woman disturb you? ![]() ![]() |
|
Mr. Langosta
said @ 5:17pm GMT on 7th Mar
[Score:1 Insightful]
Respectfully, I'm not going to engage in a case-by-case Hot or Not. |
|
skainsmate
said @ 5:26pm GMT on 7th Mar
Understood. My intent to determine whether you're categorizing all transgendered people as freakish, or if its a matter of the specific ones you've been exposed to. |
|
b
said @ 7:32pm GMT on 7th Mar
It really looked like your intent was to bait Mr. Langosta into either saying a perfectly normal looking woman was "icky" or that he couldn't tell the difference in this particular case. Which I don't think furthers the discussion. |
|
skainsmate
said @ 9:35pm GMT on 7th Mar
I guess I have highly developed trans-dar, because she looks very clearly trans to me. And yet, in my opinion, quite pretty. It wasn't a trap. It was an example of a trans woman that I would be surprised disgusted someone. |
|
foobar
said @ 10:18pm GMT on 7th Mar
She is pretty. In context, yes, you can see that she probably is trans, but she could also be a very slightly mannish biological woman. You could be trying to trick him into either saying a biological woman is icky or a trans woman is attractive. I believe you when you say you aren't doing either of those things, but I think you're wrong assuming that what he's disgusted by is what she looks like. A lot of these discussions bring up the idea that a biological man who wants to transition to a woman is "giving up something of value", and while there is probably some truth to that, there is an equal and opposite as well. Taking on the female gender is, to some, laying claim to something that they are unwilling to grant. I think there is room in between rejecting trans people entirely and accepting them fully as the gender role they want, much the same way that someone who's squicked out by two guys kissing can still support same sex marriage. |
|
Moleculor
said @ 10:44pm GMT on 7th Mar
To be fair, even a "slightly mannish cisgender woman" (the phrase "biological" woman is, from what I understand, yet another 'offensive phrase' to some transgender people) is enough "mannishness" to render a person as a non-valid source of sexual arousal for me. Those are glamour shots with hair covering half the face, still photographs that don't show motion or sound, and even then there's something very mannish about the facial bone structure. That's not even including skeletal structure, muscle shape, vocal intonation, and other physical indicators that would be normally visible in person-to-person interaction. Saying "look at this photograph which is very deftly taken to probably emphasize effeminate characteristics and hide masculine ones and tell me what you think" in a discussion about transgender issues is pretty much the definition of a trap, and not the transgender variety. |
|
theolypse
said @ 12:57am GMT on 8th Mar
Let's talk about intersexed conditions. |
|
theolypse
said @ 1:00am GMT on 8th Mar
You'd probably hurt fewer feelings if you replaced "as a non-valid source of sexual arousal for me" with "not sexually arousing to me". Same meaning, but without that loaded "valid" word. |
|
arctan
said @ 5:33am GMT on 8th Mar
To be fair, even a "slightly mannish cisgender woman" (the phrase "biological" woman is, from what I understand, yet another 'offensive phrase' to some transgender people) is enough "mannishness" to render a person as a non-valid source of sexual arousal for me. Yeah, see, just because a girl doesn't turn you on doesn't mean there's something inherently wrong with her or that you have the right, outside an actual dating/sex scenario, to treat her with any less empathy or respect than girls who do turn you on. You do realize that you will never fuck 99.999999999999% of all the women in the world anyway and so why the fuck straight guys think this "But WOULD I FUCK ONE?" question matters all that much in questions of transpeople and how they're treated is a mystery to me. I don't get how straight guys still don't get that the world doesn't revolve around them personally and their hyperattunement to avoiding being "tricked" into someday dating a transwoman is really nothing but their own damn homophobic problem. Don't sleep with women you don't find attractive, but treat everyone with respect. Is it that hard? |
|
theolypse
said @ 6:41am GMT on 8th Mar
I don't think it's really a mystery to you. If it is, I can give you relevant theories that test well. |
|
azazel
said @ 10:11am GMT on 8th Mar
I'm always up for more reading from you, if he isn't. |
|
Moleculor
said @ 10:46am GMT on 8th Mar
Yeah, see, just because a girl doesn't turn you on doesn't mean there's something inherently wrong with her or that you have the right, outside an actual dating/sex scenario, to treat her with any less empathy or respect than girls who do turn you on. Where the fuck are you getting this from? This isn't a question of *respect* or *empathy*, this is a question of *capability*. I'm me. I know me. I know that, in a given situation, I absolutely WILL forget about some special-case pronoun. I forget people's names, so special-case pronouns are going to be a fucking nightmare. |
|
skainsmate
said @ 11:40am GMT on 8th Mar
[Score:1 Insightful]
If someone is male enough looking to make you want to call her "him," yet wears women's clothing, makeup, and perhaps has some breast growth / implants, are you really forgetting that said person is trans? |
|
Moleculor
said @ 4:51pm GMT on 8th Mar
I don't know. Most images of transsexual (note not transgender) people I've seen are either very unobvious what they're trying to present (and thus would probably be difficult for me to remember which pronoun to use, do I pick the clothes or the body? because gender isn't your clothes) and others are very close to one particular gender (with a few subtle but noticeable 'transcription errors' like the red-head pics above), which would be very easy to remember. It all comes down to how close they are to one gender or another. I don't know how it'd be in reality, as I've only seen pics. |
|
arctan
said @ 9:10pm GMT on 8th Mar
(and thus would probably be difficult for me to remember which pronoun to use, do I pick the clothes or the body? because gender isn't your clothes) Jesus Christ dude, like I keep saying, if you see someone mannish-looking IN A DRESS you call them "ma'am". If you don't, and you're all "They look like a guy so I'll say 'sir'," you actually have a very small chance of pissing off an actual transwoman and a pretty high chance of pissing off a completely biologically cisgender "normal" woman who just happens to be, by your standards, ugly. I will reiterate -- your standards make no sense because if they did you would have already been pissing off ugly women all over the place by now. Or do you really think it's okay to call a cisgender, non-trans, XX chromosome woman "sir" because they just look like a guy to you? (Or are you so magical that this never ever happens to you?) |
|
Moleculor
said @ 10:33pm GMT on 8th Mar
God. Damn. It's this exact hyper-hostility that gets me so fucking skittish about this damn topic. Jesus Christ dude, like I keep saying, if you see someone mannish-looking IN A DRESS you call them "ma'am". If you don't, and you're all "They look like a guy so I'll say 'sir'," you actually have a very small chance of pissing off an actual transwoman and a pretty high chance of pissing off a completely biologically cisgender "normal" woman who just happens to be, by your standards, ugly. In that situation, I'd just fucking avoid gender-specific pronouns until I figure-the-fuck-out what the hell is going on. Usually using voice or motion or whatnot. Some other clue besides looks. And I ABSOLUTELY have been in similar situations, where someone's wearing gender neutral clothing, and is absolutely of indeterminate gender. What the fuck did I do? I simply avoided gender entirely. Made conversation slightly odd sounding, had to pause a couple of times to think of a gender-neutral way of saying anything, but if I were to pick ANY gender when I don't know, I risk offending someone. Period. Might be a guy in a dress that just likes dresses. Maybe I've mis-identified a kilt. Maybe it's a woman who's very masculine looking. Hell, maybe it's a woman transitioning to a man, and my calling him 'ma'am' offends him. |
|
skainsmate
said @ 10:54pm GMT on 8th Mar
We're getting hostile because you're being obtuse and acknowledging close to 0% of anyone else's issues with the things you've said. |
|
arrowhen
said @ 11:30pm GMT on 8th Mar
[Score:1 Insightful]
God. Damn. It's this exact hyper-hostility that gets me so fucking skittish about this damn topic. Dude, it's arctan. He'd spit out a scathing, hyper-hostile 16 paragraph essay on the controversial topic of "Hi, how are you?" if you gave him half a chance. |
|
Moleculor
said @ 11:39pm GMT on 8th Mar
I have a hard time keeping track of who's naturally hostile. It's part of the name thing. :/ |
|
azazel
said @ 11:31pm GMT on 8th Mar
In that situation, I'd just fucking avoid gender-specific pronouns until I figure-the-fuck-out what the hell is going on. Usually using voice or motion or whatnot. Some other clue besides looks. What is wrong with you? There are basically three types of people wearing dresses: cis-gendered women, transwomen and cross-dressing men (I guess there are others, but let's stick to these three). Out of these, NONE would take exception to being called "ma'am" (or I guess maybe the cross-dressing man, but I seriously doubt it). It's not that fucking hard to figure out. Are pronouns that important in English anyway? I keep trying to think of situations where you'd refer to someone with the pronoun instead of you know, just talking with them normally. Maybe if you're referring to a third person -- like "that woman over there", but I don't think I'd ever say "woman, what do you think about this?" |
|
Moleculor
said @ 11:43pm GMT on 8th Mar
What is wrong with you? Apparently I'm trying too hard to NOT offend anyone. There are basically three types of people wearing dresses: cis-gendered women, transwomen and cross-dressing men (I guess there are others, but let's stick to these three). Out of these, NONE would take exception to being called "ma'am" (or I guess maybe the cross-dressing man, but I seriously doubt it). It's not that fucking hard to figure out. Well excuse me for having a hard time figuring it out. Do you always bitch at people who don't see the world the way you do? |
|
azazel
said @ 12:21am GMT on 9th Mar
Not at all, only those I love and cherish. Or those who are being obtuse. |
|
arrowhen
said @ 12:32am GMT on 9th Mar
[Score:1 Funny]
What is wrong with you? There are basically three types of people wearing dresses: cis-gendered women, transwomen and cross-dressing men (I guess there are others, but let's stick to these three). Out of these, NONE would take exception to being called "ma'am" (or I guess maybe the cross-dressing man, but I seriously doubt it). It's not that fucking hard to figure out. You forgot wizards. |
|
Dissonant
said @ 12:36am GMT on 9th Mar
And judges in the UK (wigs, too!) |
|
Moleculor
said @ 1:06am GMT on 9th Mar
Scotsmen! |
|
eIfish
said @ 1:22am GMT on 9th Mar
I guess maybe the cross-dressing man, but I seriously doubt it Really? I get the impression that, say, Eddie Izzard would be offended to be referred to as a woman (but would be too nice to show offence). Several of his shows have contained segments clarifying that he's not gay, not interested in stereotypical female behaviour, and is not trying to impersonate or become a woman. |
|
azazel
said @ 2:06am GMT on 9th Mar
I'm talking about a situation where you don't know the preferred pronouns of the person you're talking to. Depending on the situation it might be easier to just ask or avoid gender-specific pronouns altogether, but if that's not possible I'd go with woman. If they do take offense, I would obviously apologize profusely. If they take offense and don't show it there's not much I can do about it, unfortunately. I can also only speak from personal experience, and the transvestites I know just asked me to address them as men if I got it wrong. Some of them don't mind, or even consider it amusing, to be called women and some prefer to be called men. |
|
eIfish
said @ 7:52pm GMT on 9th Mar
I'm sure that there must exist someone somewhere who has the same preferences as Eddie Izzard, but they remain unknown because he hasn't shipped millions of DVDs. If such a man were to exist, that might justify using Eddie Izzard as an example. |
|
eIfish
said @ 8:02pm GMT on 9th Mar
That said, I'd agree that just-ask, or avoid-the-issue-entirely is the best approach. Personally, I would still go for the pronoun that matches whatever sex sie looks like, on the assumption that what sie does look like is what sie is trying to look like. |
|
b
said @ 10:22pm GMT on 7th Mar
She looks very clearly trans to me, but also very natural. But given that you chose the photo for a particular purpose, I couldn't be sure. |
|
theolypse
said @ 1:28am GMT on 8th Mar
I've met a reasonable number of cis chicks with the same signifiers. |
|
ENZ
said @ 5:17pm GMT on 7th Mar
No, but this sure as hell does. |
|
KingPellinore
said @ 3:46pm GMT on 8th Mar
Why? |
|
taiga
said @ 5:17pm GMT on 7th Mar
I, for one, find her rather attractive. |
|
themanwhoeatslettus
said @ 5:19pm GMT on 7th Mar
I want to hurt all those red heads with my Penis twice. |
|
theolypse
said @ 1:13am GMT on 8th Mar
They're all the same redhead. So is that twice or six times? |
|
foobar
said @ 1:44am GMT on 8th Mar
[Score:1 Insightful]
All the times. |
|
themanwhoeatslettus
said @ 3:21am GMT on 8th Mar
Every time my restraining order lapsed. |
|
Dissonant
said @ 1:18am GMT on 8th Mar
I'm a cis-gendered straight male, and I wouldn't throw her out of bed for eating crackers. |
|
arrowhen
said @ 4:45am GMT on 8th Mar
Cliff Clavin: [about a beautiful woman who walks by] Holy guacamole. Terre hauttie Indiana. I wouldn't throw her out of my bed for eating crackers. Norm Peterson: Why else would she be there? |
|
azazel
said @ 4:02am GMT on 8th Mar
Cute. Must be hell to have that skin in the summer though. |
|
skainsmate
said @ 11:42am GMT on 8th Mar
It fucking is. The sun can go pick a fight with some Reapers, as far as I'm concerned. (Sorry, all life on Earth!) |
|
azazel
said @ 11:51am GMT on 8th Mar
This is why I work nights. |
|
mechanical contrivance
said @ 1:02am GMT on 9th Mar
It's why I work inside, and I'm not even a redhead. |
|
CommanderCherkinov
said @ 4:38pm GMT on 7th Mar
[Score:-5 Troll]
yay! Another victim class! |
|
happiest_sadist
said @ 6:09am GMT on 8th Mar
I know, right? It's like Christmas! |
|
GordonGuano
said @ 5:28pm GMT on 7th Mar
[Score:5]
Back when I was in the restaurant business, I interviewed a trans woman for an entry-level position. She was pretty masculine-looking, but wore a blouse open halfway to her waist and inch-long red fingernails. When I pointed out that company regs meant she would have to wear a polo shirt, visor, and ditch the nails, I got harangued about being an oppressor. "This is who I am", she told me, displaying her nails. I explained that washing dishes or picking up coins to make change wasn't really a possibility with them, but I had her application on file and would let her know if something came up. Now if I had to guess, I would say that this was an act she had to go through on a regular basis to keep whatever kind of government benefits she was getting to keep coming in, and more power to her. That's way more work than I would be willing to do for $700/month or whatever, and your options are pretty limited when your identity requires that you dress like a prostitute (which I suspect was actually the greater part of her income). I find the idea of identity based on superficialities sad. Who we are should be a composite of the values and virtues we hold dear, the ideals we strive to emulate. To me, those fingernails embody a senseless, tragic waste of a human life. I've been an asshole on this subject before, and I hold a few views that are contrarian. They may very well cause friction in the future. I engage in snark, jokes that fall flat, and from time to time, a bit of trolling. But no matter how shitty my week has been or how blackout drunk I am, I would never discourage anyone from speaking their mind, and hope you never feel afraid to post something. An upmod wouldn't really be appropriate, so I hope you'll accept an apology from me for douchebag things I've said in the past and that you feel free to call me out on anything you take issue with in the future. |
|
Moleculor
said @ 6:11pm GMT on 7th Mar
How does one post one of those things that hides a massive chunk of text that you can click on a little black bar to display it all? I've seen them elsewhere here in SE. Do I copy the HTML buried in the source on this post: http://www.sensibleerection.com/entry.php/82712 Or is there a simpler way? I've got something I wrote months back that's sort've a counterpoint to this I'd like feedback on. |
|
foobar
said @ 6:18pm GMT on 7th Mar
[Score:2]
Look in lilmookiesquire's profile. |
|
Spleen23
said @ 6:13pm GMT on 7th Mar
I would like to have my chosen philosophy of "If no one is hurt, who gives a shit" about how people dress, but I have the same negative reation to seeing the balding middle aged man with long painted nails and hot pants going out in public and not bothing to wear a wig as I do seeing guys in thier thirties trying to pull off the low hanging pants look. If you are going for a look but are too old, too fat, or too male to pull it off, or you just can't be bothered to do it up right, either rock it in defience of sociaties mores or quit your whineing because people who think you look like a idiot treat you like one. |
|
Moleculor
said @ 6:52pm GMT on 7th Mar
[Score:4 Underrated]
I posted this on Fetlife a couple months back. I've gotten no feedback on it (positive or negative) other than a single Facebook-like-esque "Love It" click from an asexual girl a few hundred miles away that I don't know. Figured it might be appropriate here. (Hopefully I've done the HTML right and I don't break the page!) |
|
GordonGuano
said @ 7:28pm GMT on 7th Mar
[Score:1 Insightful]
It comes across as very thoughtful, reasonable, and fair to me. Which may be a warning sign. |
|
happiest_sadist
said @ 5:22am GMT on 8th Mar
I don't like having to think too much about gender or about sexuality. I'm willing to do it and happy to do it for those I care about, but I would much prefer if it were simple. But it's never been simple, and it may never be. Even if you choose to ignore the facts of LGBTQ[A-Za-z]* then you still have to deal with the lack of gender-neutral indefinite pronoun in English, with the difference in address between married and unmarried females and between mature and immature males. tl;dr Gender politics is complicated and has made language excessively complicated, maybe we can fix it while lovingly and respectfully addressing our neighbors? |
|
arctan
said @ 5:40am GMT on 8th Mar
[Score:1 Good]
Well, my gender does matter to me. And whether you think my gender matters to you doesn't matter to me. In the abstract of course gender is an arbitrary construct, like almost all of the things we talk about. In real life that doesn't actually mean it doesn't matter or has no effect, and it sure as fuck doesn't mean that when someone loftily claims they've "stopped seeing it" or "don't care about it" they're actually right, as opposed to just making an excuse for mostly operating along the status quo. In real life, the fact that gender is blurry or complex doesn't mean *it doesn't exist*, and you going around saying "Dur hurr hurr it doesn't matter to me" just makes you a jerk. The definition of "race" is also extremely complicated and entirely socially constructed. That doesn't mean if someone tells you they're black and you're all "No you're not! Look at your skin! You're white!" and then go on to say "Well I define black people as people whose skin is dark enough to make them unattractive to me, and since I'm attracted to you you must be white" or some shit like that, you are being a turd. If you don't get that analogy either and your response is to say "I neither see race nor gender!" then I really just don't know what to say to you except accuse you of lying because you really almost certainly are. No one who's really a "zero on the Kinsey scale" as you describe yourself is totally blind to social gender as you claim to be -- if facial hair is enough of a tremendous turnoff to make someone "invalid" as a woman for you then I strongly doubt you're completely blind to whether a woman dresses, speaks or acts femininely as long as she has all the right "parts". (And then we get into how the phenotypic expression of gender is fuzzy too -- there are plenty of completely "real" women born as women who have deep voices, who have more facial hair than fashion thinks they should, etc. Does the fact that they don't give you a boner mean you get to declare them male?) |
|
Moleculor
said @ 10:54am GMT on 8th Mar
I'm not DEFINING gender as "attractive or unattractive", I'm saying that, when it comes to attraction, GENDER DOESN'T MATTER. Let me put this another way, because you're clearly lashing out at me over some unresolved issues you've got from some old friend of yours: I've been in at least two sexual relationships with females who were gender-queer. I could absolutely see myself dating/fucking someone who's self-identified gender was male, so long as to *my eyes and brain* their sex was and is female. They could tell me their gender was some fifth option. It wouldn't matter. |
|
a.talisan
said @ 9:02pm GMT on 7th Mar
I've been called intolerant for referring to someone as "him" at an anime convention when he was wearing a dress because "it's obvious" that he's trying to present himself as a woman. I found it creepy when he explained that he always dresses in "lolita dresses" to feel pretty and attractive and is trying to build a wardrobe so he can do it full time. This isn't because it is a man trying to present himself as a woman, it is because I find the idea of presenting oneself as a sexual object by dressing as a sexually active 12 year old girl to be intensely disturbing. So here's a weird query. Do you assume any cross-dressing man wants to be called "She?" |
|
justus
said @ 9:34pm GMT on 7th Mar
Just use gender-neutral pronouns! Then e can't complain, as you'll be rightly respecting eir wishes. |
|
arrowhen
said @ 10:28pm GMT on 7th Mar
[Score:1 Insightful]
I'm not an 'e', I'm a 'ze', you intolerant jerk! |
|
happiest_sadist
said @ 6:08am GMT on 8th Mar
Est-ce vous Ze Frank? |
|
eIfish
said @ 10:21pm GMT on 7th Mar
TBF, at an anime convention, you've no way of telling if someone dressed as a loligith is transgender, transvestite, crossplaying, or just a fan of Moyashimon. |
|
arrowhen
said @ 10:25pm GMT on 7th Mar
[Score:2 Underrated]
I wouldn't call a man in a dress "she" any more than I'd call a woman in pants "he"... unless either of them specifically asked me to. In which case I'd try to respect their wishes but still slip up from time to time out of habit. Hell, I have a hard enough time remembering people's *names*. I also don't think wearing a dress as a costume to what is essentially a giant costume party is "obviously presenting" oneself as a woman. Most people wearing costumes at a gathering of costume wearers are just wearing costumes because costumes are fun. I mean, hell, when I'm strutting around the renaissance faire in my ringmail, loincloth, and sword, I sure as hell don't expect people to *actually treat me* like a barbarian warrior in a cheesy 1980s fantasy movie. And even if I *did* feel that the costume was really some deep expression of my innermost identity, it would be stupid of me to take offense when people didn't immediately recognize that. |
|
a.talisan
said @ 9:26pm GMT on 7th Mar
[Score:4 Underrated]
I think the article is wishy-washy and makes broad generalizations about many groups. Yes, many people might feel threatened by feelings they do not share. That's true from atheists to transgendered people. It hardly needs to be stated. But if you will forgive me making my own broad generalizations of men who wish to present themselves as women, from the experience I've had with those I've met, read on. First, I am a woman. I'm attracted to women much more than men. I like being a woman. Yet, I seem to behave more like a man in most situations. I try to be rational, logical, fair - and this has caused me no amount of problems in dealing with other women. I don't use emotional blowups to get my way, I hate manipulative behavior (both doing and receiving). Most women seem to find me threatening and I don't know why. I'm also a writer, which means I've spent a great deal of time trying to dissect and learn how to emulate stereotypical masculine and feminine behaviors so I can write more believable characters. I spend a great deal of time trying to understand what is normal female behavior, and what is simply the byproduct of our cultural conditioning. Because by and large I find most women completely awful. That even while they are screaming that they are more than sex objects, they don't try to be anything _more_ than sex objects. But again, another rant. Yet, because I am attracted to women and have tried to date them by signing up for internet dating sites - this means I've come into contact with a handful of men who wanted me to accept them as women because they claim they are women. I'm not interested. Why, if I don't find male genitals automatically offensive? Because I'm looking for a woman who has had the experience of being a woman, growing up as a woman, and acting from that perspective in life. I really do see behaviorally speaking, men and women follow different average trends. Less emphasis on the importance of behavior and adhering gender stereotypes would be nice. I don't think any actions or feelings are forbidden from either a male or a female, but male and female bodies are different, and I really think this has a strong impact on the issues one has to deal with. On the other hand, I think a lot of what we feel IS normal for men and women has to do with cultural bounds for gender roles. Like the issues about females expressing their sexuality, but that's an entirely separate rant. Sometimes I almost feel that trans-women are looking to have their cake and eat it too, especially the pre-gender reassignment ones. They see women as getting all the attention, and men are left out of that by and large, so presenting oneself as a woman makes them different and they get attention (positive or negative doesn't much matter). But they don't seem to see that there are a lot of UNATTRACTIVE women who DON'T get the attention. And even if they can pull off the "looking like a woman" it doesn't simulate or give any experience with the emotional rollercoaster imposed by the constantly fluctuating hormones that many women have to deal with on a daily basis. But does that make a woman? Birth control pills impose changes in those hormone balances, and thus changes the emotions that are born from it. Not to mention any number of medical and surgical intervention that could make a woman feel less like one. And does becoming an adult as a man, then dressing in dresses make you feel more like a woman? Is part of being indoctrinated into the "appropriate" gender identity something that is important? Because you only get one shot at that and depending on your parents - gender influence could have had nothing, or everything, to how you were raised. Is it possible that some people feel they are born in the wrong body for how they feel internally? Sure. But what about this situation - a woman who feels she SHOULD be more attractive - that she was born into an uglier body than she should be? How can she feel more at peace with her own body? Well, I suppose by much the same option - cosmetic surgery. I just wonder if it wouldn't be more healthy to separate the fact of the body parts one has inherited from birth from the appropriateness of behavioral masculinity or femininity. |
|
foobar
said @ 10:26pm GMT on 7th Mar
Children use emotional blowups and manipulative behaviour to get their way, not men and not women. |
|
eIfish
said @ 10:43pm GMT on 7th Mar
Children get caught. |
|
arrowhen
said @ 11:12pm GMT on 7th Mar
[Score:1 Funny]
Wait, I was married to a child all those years? Fuck, there goes my political career! |
|
blibblob
said @ 2:03am GMT on 8th Mar
Lols. |
|
b
said @ 2:56am GMT on 8th Mar
Naive much? I'm thirty fucking seven years old and I've been known to use those tactics. Don't try and tell me other adults don't do it too. |
|
foobar
said @ 3:48am GMT on 8th Mar
Yes, adults can be childish. |
|
blibblob
said @ 4:00am GMT on 8th Mar
Right. Because every time someone lets their anger get the better of them, it's inherently childish. Not human and not normal. The stupidity of this statement is in the overwhelming holier-than-thou condescension. |
|
happiest_sadist
said @ 5:31am GMT on 8th Mar
Right, because "letting your anger get the better of you" isn't something you should try to outgrow, because it's "normal". |
|
blibblob
said @ 5:19pm GMT on 8th Mar
Never said that. But this is another case of "no true scotsman", adults aren't children but since we happen to be human, not robots, it is quite normal to maintain "childish" behavior. Or was the entire Cold War maintained by children? |
|
arrowhen
said @ 7:37pm GMT on 8th Mar
No true ScottsPERSON. |
|
blibblob
said @ 8:19pm GMT on 8th Mar
I thought Scotsmen were like dwarves, all of them bearded men with different genitalia. |
|
lilmookieesquire
said @ 7:45pm GMT on 8th Mar
Getting angry and running with your emotions is the essence of being human. Controlling those and trying to use logic, reason, discussion and understanding is to try and assend humanity, which science and technology willing, we someday shall. |
|
lilmookieesquire
said @ 7:54pm GMT on 8th Mar
I mean shit, wasnt that what star trek was all about. |
|
blibblob
said @ 8:16pm GMT on 8th Mar
I don't think you examined Spock and Data's characters carefully enough. Nor really any of the episodes involving other Vulcan practices, nor Q. |
|
lilmookieesquire
said @ 8:24pm GMT on 8th Mar
I speak of it in this sense: "Star Trek depicts a "troika" of Spock, Kirk, and Doctor Leonard McCoy (DeForest Kelley); while McCoy often acts as Kirk's conscience, Spock offers the captain an emotionally detached, logical perspective.[4] The character also offers an "outsider's" perspective on "the human condition".[4]" |
|
blibblob
said @ 8:40pm GMT on 8th Mar
[Score:1 Interesting]
Yet the fact that Spock is part human is a huge influence on his character, Kirk would have died a few times if Spock didn't let his emotions get the better of him. The episode of Spock's arranged marriage being one of the more obvious times. TNG explores the detached logic influenced by humanity aspect even more. I never saw the Vulcans as a perfect race. |
|
Adam
said @ 10:12am GMT on 8th Mar
[Score:1 Underrated]
Because every time someone lets their anger get the better of them, it's inherently childish. Every time? No. But most of the time? Yes. |
|
lilmookieesquire
said @ 5:25am GMT on 8th Mar
[Score:1 Good]
I think he's used to being around adults. |
|
b
said @ 3:14pm GMT on 8th Mar
Your italics imply that the only adults he is in contact with never lose their temper, never exaggerate their emotions and never try and manipulate people with emotion. Which is either outright bullshit or he's the most completely oblivious to the people around him. |
|
lilmookieesquire
said @ 7:40pm GMT on 8th Mar
Blowups and losing your temper are two totally different things. I stand by my italics. |
|
lilmookieesquire
said @ 7:52pm GMT on 8th Mar
And using those to manipulate people is a third. It's a tool, but it's like using a hammer on a computer. Sometimes it works to great satisfaction, but rarely ia it the best tool. |
|
Moleculor
said @ 11:11pm GMT on 7th Mar
[Score:1 Insightful]
I just wonder if it wouldn't be more healthy to separate the fact of the body parts one has inherited from birth from the appropriateness of behavioral masculinity or femininity. This, this, a million times this. Masculinity in America is different from masculinity in Japan. This means that the concept of "gender" and "gender behavior" are social constructs and NOT UNIVERSAL. In fact, they are socially-reinforced stereotypes borne of sexual discrimination. Continuing to support the idea of gender and gender behavior somehow being associated with a person's sex simply works against the concept of sexual equality. |
|
blindnerd
said @ 11:28pm GMT on 7th Mar
Yes, and if we all bioengineered ourselves with wings we wouldn't need to worry about invasive pat downs and screenings from the TSA. |
|
mechanical contrivance
said @ 3:27am GMT on 8th Mar
How long would it take a human with wings to fly from New York to LA? |
|
azazel
said @ 3:54am GMT on 8th Mar
[Score:1 Insightful]
An African human or a European human? |
|
Bill O'Reilly
said @ 9:10am GMT on 8th Mar
Well obviously the African would get there quicker, they jump higher. |
|
KingPellinore
said @ 12:53pm GMT on 8th Mar
Then again, African humans are not migratory. |
|
skainsmate
said @ 7:08pm GMT on 8th Mar
Not since the triangle trade stopped, no. |
|
Naruki
said @ 3:58am GMT on 8th Mar
Okay, so we need to bioengineer jet-powered wings. |
|
blindnerd
said @ 5:01am GMT on 8th Mar
[Britta Perry Voice] Dah-doi! [/Britta Perry Voice] |
|
theolypse
said @ 12:45am GMT on 8th Mar
Much like the existence of trans lesbians serves to disprove the “really, really gay” myth, in this case we can point to the existence of butch or tomboy trans women. Ta da! Myth vanishes in a puff of logic. |
|
Dissonant
said @ 1:21am GMT on 8th Mar
I certainly agree with the first couple sentences. My problem with the article is that every time I read "male = good, female = bad, this is how society sees things", my brain vapor locks, because that's pretty much the exact opposite position to where my life experiences have guided me. And no, I don't have gender dysphoria -- I feel like I'm male, and my biology is also male, so gender dysphoria is something I can sympathize with being "innate", if only because that's the most reasonable explanation for why I don't have it. |
|
theolypse
said @ 1:27am GMT on 8th Mar
You've been hypersensitized to a particular, narrow range of gender stereotypes. I sympathize. I had issues resulting from similar observations. Ours are hardly universal perceptions, though. |
|
Dissonant
said @ 1:38am GMT on 8th Mar
Maybe so, and I can sorta accept on faith that many or even most people think this to some extent, but on a personal level, I find myself unable to engage with it. It just seems too ludicrous to me on a "gut" level. |
|
theolypse
said @ 1:42am GMT on 8th Mar
I know, dude. I know. Consider the difference in laudable qualities referred to when calling someone "manly" versus "womanly". The key you might seize upon is that no one uses "womanly" to compliment someone. |
|
Dissonant
said @ 1:51am GMT on 8th Mar
True, but I never saw "manly" as a compliment, either. That's probably just me, though. |
|
foobar
said @ 2:24am GMT on 8th Mar
That term would be "ladylike". |
|
blibblob
said @ 2:33am GMT on 8th Mar
Docile, timid and prudish are compliments? |
|
foobar
said @ 3:48am GMT on 8th Mar
You can attribute brash, incurious and aggressive to manly. Ladylike is intended to be complimentary, even if you don't necessarily approve of the connotations. |
|
theolypse
said @ 2:43am GMT on 8th Mar
[Score:1 Insightful]
And "lady" for "woman" is itself a euphemism that subtly degrades the term it replaces. |
|
arctan
said @ 5:14am GMT on 8th Mar
But if you will forgive me making my own broad generalizations of men who wish to present themselves as women, from the experience I've had with those I've met, read on. I read it, and I've decided not to forgive you after all. Sorry. You come off as exactly the kind of woman snowfox described with the term "Uncle Tom" -- saying deeply and unjustifiably misogynistic things and acting like you're somehow entitled to do it because you're a woman. Because by and large I find most women completely awful. That even while they are screaming that they are more than sex objects, they don't try to be anything _more_ than sex objects. Like that. What the fuck is that. Yet, because I am attracted to women and have tried to date them by signing up for internet dating sites - this means I've come into contact with a handful of men who wanted me to accept them as women because they claim they are women. I'm not interested. Why, if I don't find male genitals automatically offensive? Because I'm looking for a woman who has had the experience of being a woman, growing up as a woman, and acting from that perspective in life. I really do see behaviorally speaking, men and women follow different average trends. So what you're attracted to is not feminine bodies but feminine behavior. And yet to you almost all feminine behavior is completely distasteful and amounts to whining about being a sex object while being a sex object. You are exclusively attracted to behavior you simultaneously hold in contempt. Congratulations! You're a douchey misogynist straight guy! I try to be rational, logical, fair - and this has caused me no amount of problems in dealing with other women. I don't use emotional blowups to get my way, I hate manipulative behavior (both doing and receiving). Most women seem to find me threatening and I don't know why. Maybe it's because based on this comment, at least, your definition of "rational, logical, fair" means making sweeping authoritative declarations that are entirely you-centric without a shred of empathy. I mean, sure, this is exactly the kind of thing a ton of guys do that also gets women to hate them as well. You're in good company. I guess. Sometimes I almost feel that trans-women are looking to have their cake and eat it too, especially the pre-gender reassignment ones. They see women as getting all the attention, and men are left out of that by and large, so presenting oneself as a woman makes them different and they get attention (positive or negative doesn't much matter). But they don't seem to see that there are a lot of UNATTRACTIVE women who DON'T get the attention. You know, as someone who once had a good friend who was a transgirl and who also had crippling shyness and suffered from anxiety attacks all the time (and thanks to losing touch with her in college due to my own shit, not actually knowing myself if she's even alive right now)... God, fuck you so much. |
|
Dioxin
said @ 12:47am GMT on 10th Mar
One more round of rage performance, please. I think this woman hasn't been marginalized quite enough yet. She deserves another round of talking down. |
|
mrcucumber
said @ 4:02am GMT on 10th Mar
[Score:1 Insightful]
Please no. We don't need any more rage. Rants are ok, but lets leave rage out of it, Ok? |
|
mrcucumber
said @ 4:03am GMT on 10th Mar
Bah, sarcasm meter offline. Whatever. |
|
arctan
said @ 5:27am GMT on 10th Mar
You know, I've complained about this before. Why is it okay for her to roundly attack, insult and marginalize all transwomen but it crosses the line to unwonted hostility and rudeness for me to attack, insult and marginalize her? Why should everyone be applauded for "contributing" to a conversation, no matter how insulting or hurtful those contributions are to wide swathes of the population, but then people turn around and attack further contributions to the conversation attempting to contribute the opinion that the first contribution was a load of bigoted shit? Is it rude for me to attack a.talisan but *not* rude for a.talisan to say the horrifically shitty things she said about "men who present themselves as women" because she's here and the transwomen aren't? Because in this case even that isn't true. We *do* know that transwomen *are* here -- skainsmate, at least, is here, and specifically created this post to talk about why being talked down to like that is unwarranted and shitty. Should a.talisan be allowed to get away with talking down to skainsmate because she didn't do so directly, or didn't actually bluntly use swearwords while openly accusing her of being an attention whore who just wants to be pretty, or what? Should she say something awful like "most women are sex objects" and get away with it because she preceded it with an obnoxious "But that's just my opinion, folks!" disclaimer? |
|
bruceski
said @ 5:30am GMT on 8th Mar
I think you may be putting too much onto the motives of trans-women as a generalization. Different folks do it for different reasons. I have two trans-male friends and they're an interesting contrast; while one's acknowledging of his past the other one seems to be trying to scrub any history that he was ever considered a woman. I'm sure they both have reasons for it that I don't know, and I should qualify that this is from my limited interactions with them (one's in another state now, and I was kinda dating the other so things got awkward though we're friendly enough at parties) so it may just be how they're choosing to present themselves over Facebook and such, similar to how I only make LJ posts when I want to blow off steam. |
|
skainsmate
said @ 11:23am GMT on 8th Mar
[Score:1 Underrated]
And even if they can pull off the "looking like a woman" it doesn't simulate or give any experience with the emotional rollercoaster imposed by the constantly fluctuating hormones that many women have to deal with on a daily basis You must not know much about trans women if you think we don't have to deal with hormonal rollercoasters. The hormones we take may not make us bleed from our crotches, but you've clearly never talked to a trans woman about the massive amounts of estrogen she sends in to battle all that testosterone. It's not a fight of "who's more a slave to the chemicals in their body," but if it was, you shouldn't be so sure you're "winning." There's more to this process than throwing on a dress. |
|
eIfish
said @ 10:41pm GMT on 7th Mar
[Score:1 Funny]
Dear "Center for Gender Sanity's Diagram of Sex and Gender", I guess it's true that if your only tool is a scale, everything looks like a continuum. Your article reads like a cross between a physics proof about spherical cats, and a Players' Handbook trying to sell its character creation system. |
|
Moleculor
said @ 10:51pm GMT on 7th Mar
What's worse is they lump gender orientation in with sexual orientation, when they're two separate things. |
|
skainsmate
said @ 11:27am GMT on 8th Mar
What are you talking about? It clearly separates them into separate scales, to educate people on the fact that they are distinct and separate. |
|
Moleculor
said @ 5:12pm GMT on 8th Mar
Apparently you didn't read my writing closely enough. That "Gender Sanity" link has only one scale for erotic/romantic expression. There should be at least two. |
|
skainsmate
said @ 7:13pm GMT on 8th Mar
What you said was "they lump gender orientation in with sexual orientation," which is not true. Thank you for clarifying that you meant romantic/emotional preference being lumped in with sexual preference. I agree that one can have divergent romantic feelings from one's sexual attractions. |
|
skainsmate
said @ 7:14pm GMT on 8th Mar
I'm thrilled to agree with you about something, but maybe next time you should read your own writing more carefully. |
|
Moleculor
said @ 7:43pm GMT on 8th Mar
The writing I'm referring to is up here. Sorry, maybe you just didn't read it at all. Which is 'fine', I suppose, but it's the most clear, concise way I can think of to explain how very very little other people's gender matters to me, and I really wish you would read it. (i.e. Gender won't factor in to my decisions/thoughts about them.) "Gender orientation" is the only phrase I can think of to refer to a person's erotic/romantic interests that are based on another person's presented/preferred gender rather than their sex. If you can think of another, better phrase, I'd love to hear it. |
|
skainsmate
said @ 8:51pm GMT on 8th Mar
I've avoided commenting on your Fetish post for a reason. You are entitled to feel however you wish to. Now, however, I feel I need to address it: you are just finding another way to tell me I'm not "really" a woman. Most people are attracted to physical bodies, not chromosomes. If I have a vagina and look like a woman, your claim (despite never having met a trans person) is that the knowledge that I was born male would supersede everything else. That attitude is why most women who can pull it off go stealth. There is no scale for "physical attraction to someone else's internal sense of self" because that makes NO FUCKING SENSE. You clearly are incapable of understanding why the things you say are hurtful so I'm going to stop trying. |
|
Moleculor
said @ 10:26pm GMT on 8th Mar
you are just finding another way to tell me I'm not "really" a woman. No, and you don't get to speak for me. If your gender is 'woman', you're a woman. Much like if your self identity is 'teacher' or 'geek' or 'jock' or whatever. Most people are attracted to physical bodies, not chromosomes. This has jack-fucking-shit to do with chromosomes, and I make that perfectly clear in what I wrote. your claim (despite never having met a trans person) is that the knowledge that I was born male would supersede everything else. So you think that your perception of a person has no bearing on your sexual attraction to them? Because for me, perception is significant. I'm rather shocked that you'd be trying to shame someone for their sexual preferences. |
|
skainsmate
said @ 10:50pm GMT on 8th Mar
Shame you? I'm trying to get you to hear your words from another's perspective. |
|
foobar
said @ 10:53pm GMT on 8th Mar
This whole "it's not a woman if I don't want to stick it in her" thing really isn't helping your case. |
|
Moleculor
said @ 11:03pm GMT on 8th Mar
Took me three reads of that to even understand what you were saying. Fuck that. That's not what I'm saying at all. Did I misspeak somewhere? My sexual attraction to someone has no bearing on their sex OR gender. |
|
Moleculor
said @ 7:50pm GMT on 8th Mar
No no. This isn't the difference between 'romance' and 'sexual preference'. This is the difference between 'erotic preferences with respect to gender' and 'erotic preferences with respect to sex'. Gender orientation and sexual orientation. The first is a phrase I may or may not have come up with on my own to describe a phenomenon that makes no sense to me, but is apparently valid for wide swaths of humanity, so I can understand how it wouldn't be clear upon first reading it. |
|
arctan
said @ 8:58pm GMT on 8th Mar
Unless you actually get turned on by doing a DNA sequence and seeing two X chromosomes, this is full of shit. Physical appearance is part of gender. You don't "not see gender", you just ignore all but a tiny part of it and then claim that it's not gender but objectively identifiable sex. As previously noted, you need to look at intersex people and conditions like AIS and then rethink whether your whole "sex vs gender" thing makes any sense. |
|
Dissonant
said @ 9:57pm GMT on 8th Mar
I have to disagree with you here. I don't see physical appearance as part of gender at all, except where it relates to surgical and cosmetic changes. The fact that most people are able to bring their physical appearance in line with their gender (to varying degrees of success) does not equate the two, in my view. You couldn't really make a good case for it being "sex", either, as you have rightly pointed out. It's... phenotype, which is differentiable from genotype, and has all kinds of influences. To me, it's really a third thing. People are very good at finding patterns and putting people into categories. Moleculor is (as far as I understand) not saying that sex is "objectively identifiable", but rather that, to him, there are signifiers that he has used to distinguish between "men" and "women" (such as he believed they were). So just because it's all in his head doesn't make it any less real to him. His point, despite being phrased badly, is, as I see it, that he reacts to several phenotypical signifiers that he sees as (barring surgery) different from gender, and I don't think he's wrong as far as that goes. |
|
Moleculor
said @ 10:27pm GMT on 8th Mar
Physical appearance is part of gender. Buck Angel disagrees. |
|
skainsmate
said @ 10:52pm GMT on 8th Mar
You don't think Buck Angel appears to be a guy? |
|
Moleculor
said @ 11:07pm GMT on 8th Mar
Buck Angel has extremely obvious female body parts. Most notably a pussy. There are absolutely significant masculine traits about him, but the very concept of 'transgender' was invented to separate the idea of gender from sex, so that a person could stand up and state "I am a woman" while still having a penis and a beard. Unless you feel that no one gets to call themselves a man or a woman until they physically appear to be so. Which sorta runs counter to what I understand to be the very idea of transgender identity. Physical appearance has no bearing on gender. Which is where my struggle comes in: If someone's physical appearance says "man" and their gender is "woman", I'm probably going to fuck up somewhere with the pronouns no matter how hard I try, because for the last thirty years I've used pronouns to describe nothing but physical appearance. |
|
azazel
said @ 11:25pm GMT on 8th Mar
So a transgender woman, with a vagina, is still a man to you? So the ... I'm not really sure what you're arguing any longer. |
|
Moleculor
said @ 11:30pm GMT on 8th Mar
Buck Angel is FtoM. Wouldn't that be a "transgender man"? |
|
azazel
said @ 12:25am GMT on 9th Mar
Yes. But since he has a, as you put it, 'pussy' he's obviously a woman to you. I messed up that analogy somewhere; it's late and I've had little sleep. So if a transgender man is missing a penis -- something you're unlikely to see unless you're watching him naked, you might accidentally call him "she"? |
|
Moleculor
said @ 1:08am GMT on 9th Mar
Yes. But since he has a, as you put it, 'pussy' he's obviously a woman to you. No he's not, stop fucking speaking for me. |
|
azazel
said @ 2:11am GMT on 9th Mar
*sigh* |
|
azazel
said @ 2:40am GMT on 9th Mar
I posted a response to this and some other stuff you've said further down; it's getting difficult to keep track of the discussion. |
|
b
said @ 11:30pm GMT on 7th Mar
What I'd really like to see is the literature from the Center for Gender Insanity. |
|
theolypse
said @ 12:45am GMT on 8th Mar
[Score:4 Insightful]
Have you never read a tampride post? |
|
b
said @ 2:57am GMT on 8th Mar
I've read them all. Twice. |
|
Navier-Strokes
said @ 3:34am GMT on 8th Mar
How has tamp not posted here? Their perspective would interest me. |
|
madpride
said @ 3:50am GMT on 8th Mar
[Score:1 Informative]
Jesus buggering George Bush. |
|
hellboy
said @ 8:08am GMT on 10th Mar
Not crazy enough. |
|
mechanical contrivance
said @ 5:32pm GMT on 10th Mar
Jesus buggering George Bush in a pink wig. |
|
azazel
said @ 4:14am GMT on 8th Mar
[Score:1 Informative]
So I casually mentioned my wish to cross-dress to my girlfriend, and another nail in the coffin was had when she responded with, I kid you not, "ewww". Thanks for the support, I love you too. |
|
arrowhen
said @ 4:43am GMT on 8th Mar
Aww :( |
|
kichijoii
said @ 9:31am GMT on 8th Mar
Hey, better he find out now than after marriage. |
|
bltrocker
said @ 6:23am GMT on 8th Mar
[Score:2]
I just don't want to give a fuck. And if everyone was just cool with everyone, then no one would give a fuck, and we'd all be chill. But since people are assholes and care to shit on other people who are different, not giving a fuck is in turn an asshole option. So FUCK YOU assholes for not allowing me to not give a fuck! GOD DAMN IT I am drunk. |
|
azazel
said @ 10:38am GMT on 8th Mar
Reminds me, the documentary Sex Change Soldier is pretty good. |
|
skainsmate
said @ 12:26pm GMT on 8th Mar
[Score:5 Underrated]
I wanted to take a moment to thank a number of you. Before posting this, I went back and forth on whether it was a good idea. Last time I tried to educate this community on trans issues (starting with a simple correction), I spent the entire week feeling incredibly shitty. In the end, however, I posted this because I decided that advancing awareness and humanizing us was more important than my self-esteem. I regretted my decision within an hour or so of posting. Again, I felt pressure to respond to every hurtful comment, every illogical argument, every misconception and I quickly became overwhelmed. I ended up trying to avoid my post for the rest of the day and distracting myself from thinking about it as best I could. To wake up today, and read all the people debunking faulty arguments and calling people out on their self-blindness and privilege... it has made all the difference. Thank you again. I hate being an advocate. Don't think I engage in these discussions because I enjoy them. I'm usually sad, frustrated, and/or angry when typing these things (someone tell a.talisan about my mood swings so she'll accept me as a woman!). I don't do it for me. I do it for all of you, and for any sisters and brothers- though I generally don't address specifically trans male issues- whose lives end up touching yours. And I do it with the tiniest hope that next time there will be one additional person among the ranks of people who take a stand and make it all seem less futile for whatever poor girl wakes up feeling the way I did this morning. Thank you. Happy International Women's Day. |
|
Dissonant
said @ 4:35pm GMT on 8th Mar
[Score:1 Good]
I'm fairly sure I'm not one of those people you're thanking, and that's fine, but I wish I could give you a hug right now, if you would accept one from me, that is. |
|
lilmookieesquire
said @ 7:29pm GMT on 8th Mar
You did good. You might want to use terms like "raise awareness" as opposed to "educating" but I think this post brought up some highly interesting dialogue and was an interesting insight into biases, acceptances, assumptions and perceptions. I think it was a very enjoyable post and I'm glad you posted it here. |
|
foobar
said @ 8:04pm GMT on 8th Mar
Bend over, you'll raise my awareness. |
|
lilmookieesquire
said @ 8:19pm GMT on 8th Mar
Oh lala! |
|
arrowhen
said @ 7:31pm GMT on 8th Mar
[Score:2 Insightful]
Look, I hate to see a fellow SE-er feeling bad, but *dude* (and I say that in a strictly genderless way), you felt shitty for a *week* because people were dumb on the internet? That's... probably not a very healthy approach to online discourse. Don't get me wrong, I love this fucked up, beautiful, dysfunctional family we call SE, but at the same time, I'm not gonna let any of you fuckers ruin my day. |
|
azazel
said @ 7:33pm GMT on 8th Mar
[Score:4 Funny]
You suck and should feel bad about it. |
|
blindnerd
said @ 7:47pm GMT on 8th Mar
[Score:1 Informative]
I think it probably has more to do with the fact that trans people deal with tons of real world bigotry. Coming in to a community like SE that is generally pretty accepting and finding that it can be just as full of those real world biases and closed mindedness is probably pretty discouraging. |
|
skainsmate
said @ 8:37pm GMT on 8th Mar
When you walk a difficult path, sometimes you find the strength to keep going by telling yourself there are places out there where people will understand, or are reasonable enough to be made to understand. When something happens to shake that naive belief, what moves your feet? Sometimes it takes a long time to find the answer to that question. I hope you never have to know what I'm talking about. |
|
arrowhen
said @ 9:16pm GMT on 8th Mar
[Score:2 Insightful]
Sooner or later, in some way great or small, everyone -- even those who mean well, even those who love you, even you yourself -- will eventually let you down. You do what you can to minimize the chances and mitigate the damage, but it's still going to happen. That's why everyone needs something in their life OTHER THAN other people that makes them happy and keeps them human. I'm partial to cats and guitars, myself. |
|
blindnerd
said @ 10:05pm GMT on 8th Mar
I think a lot of trans people know this better than most. I believe it was Natalie's blog where I read that she's had roommates who wouldn't even acknowledge her in public for fear of people's reaction. |
|
arrowhen
said @ 11:36pm GMT on 8th Mar
I think a lot of trans people know this better than most. But that "most" would contain plenty of other oppressed, marginalized, or alienated groups, from Hispanics and gays to [sports team] fans in [rival sports team's home town]. Humans are infinitely creative at coming up with bullshit reasons to treat each other poorly, and I think the time spent arguing about who gets treated worse would be better spent trying to figure out ways for us all to stop doing that shit. |
|
blindnerd
said @ 6:11pm GMT on 9th Mar
Well I agree with most of your comment I don't understand why you would need to throw in bullshit like ...[sports team] fans in [rival sports team's home town], which trivializes what is very much a literal life or death situation for the people affected by it. And it is important to recognize that while we are all affected, we aren't all affected equally. Failing to recognize that means we can end up with cis, straight males deciding that because gender isn't important to them, it shouldn't be important to anyone. |
|
arrowhen
said @ 9:28pm GMT on 9th Mar
Well I agree with most of your comment I don't understand why you would need to throw in bullshit like ...[sports team] fans in [rival sports team's home town], which trivializes what is very much a literal life or death situation for the people affected by it. Except that people have been assaulted and even murdered for wearing the wrong color jersey or scarf or whatever. What my comment was meant to suggest is that hating and mistreating someone because of their race or sexual orientation or gender identity is exactly as stupid as hating them and mistreating them because of their favorite sports team. And it is important to recognize that while we are all affected, we aren't all affected equally. Some cancers are worse than others. I still think we should cure them all! Failing to recognize that means we can end up with cis, straight males deciding that because gender isn't important to them, it shouldn't be important to anyone. |
|
arrowhen
said @ 9:32pm GMT on 9th Mar
Copy/paste fail in that last paragraph. My bad. |
|
eIfish
said @ 11:07am GMT on 10th Mar
bullshit like ...[sports team] fans in [rival sports team's home town] Yeah, you've obviously never lived anywhere where sports teams are used as a proxy for religious hatred, and displaying the wrong colours in the wrong part of town could get you killed. |
|
skainsmate
said @ 10:49pm GMT on 8th Mar
[Score:2 Underrated]
Yep. It could be as innocent as someone who doesn't get death stares everywhere he goes telling you how to feel when the back-breaking straw hits the camel. |
|
arrowhen
said @ 11:00pm GMT on 8th Mar
Who told you how to feel? |
|
arctan
said @ 5:29am GMT on 10th Mar
When you admonish someone that feeling shitty for a week is "unhealthy" that's implying that you think they had a choice in the matter, and could have chosen the "healthy" option of just laughing it off. That's privilege talking. |
|
arrowhen
said @ 6:57pm GMT on 10th Mar
[Score:1 Underrated]
I didn't admonish her for feeling shitty. I didn't admonish her for anything. What I suggested might be unhealthy is her approach to online discourse, as you might have known had you read all three sentences instead of just scanning for words to become offended over and imagining the rest. What's unhealthy is caring too much about the opinions of random internet strangers. What's unhealthy is baring your deepest emotions to people when you don't KNOW they've got your back. What's unhealthy is relying too much on other people for your own happiness... ESPECIALLY if you know you're the sort of person who is likely to feel shitty for a week when people do the stupid things that people always do, rather than the sort of person who can just go "man, FUCK those those idiots! I'm just gonna go play Skyrim and not be bothered." |
|
blindnerd
said @ 9:36pm GMT on 10th Mar
In a world where just going to the grocery store is a calculated risk in opening oneself up to gawking, ridicule, and threats, I imagine places where you can interact with people without having to deal with stupid shit they do directed at you are pretty few and far between. I'd guess that if skainesmate played an hour of Skyrim every time someone said something hurtful, mean, or stupid to/about her, she would have gotten the 100% completion achievement within a week of the game's release date. |
|
arrowhen
said @ 12:05am GMT on 11th Mar
I'd guess that if skainesmate played an hour of Skyrim every time someone said something hurtful, mean, or stupid to/about her, she would have gotten the 100% completion achievement within a week of the game's release date. You could say the same about anyone who works in customer service. Now OBVIOUSLY the magnitude of the hurtful, mean, stupidness is going to be a lot lower for them. I'm not trying to trivialize skainsmate's experience through that comparison, just pointing out that most people are assholes. |
|
Dissonant
said @ 1:48am GMT on 11th Mar
[Score:2 Insightful]
Being aware that hurtful comments (especially about such a depressing thing) bother you may not be as healthy as the comments not bothering you, but it's healthier than lying to others that these things don't hurt you, because then you ruin any chance of getting any support you need, and it's far, far healthier than lying to yourself and pretending these things don't bother you when they subconsciously do, because that's how you find the aspirin and vodka in your hand. Trust me. |
|
arrowhen
said @ 3:10am GMT on 11th Mar
VictorTyne, take your upmod back. I don't want your jerk ass agreeing with me! |
|
blindnerd
said @ 5:53am GMT on 11th Mar
Haha. I had incpenners upmod a comment of mine a couple weeks back and I still don't feel 100% clean even immediately after a shower. |
|
VictorTyne
said @ 8:11pm GMT on 10th Mar
[Score:-5 Flamebait]
(someone tell a.talisan about my mood swings so she'll accept me as a woman!) You think men don't have mood swings? You think having mood swings makes you a woman? Congrats! You've managed to demean both genders in a single sentence! It's things like this that make me wonder if the whole trans-thing is just an overreaction to all the macho bullshit popular culture forces upon young males. "Oh no! People are picking on me because I cried once! I'll be able to cry if I pretend I'm a girl!" That's probably a bit over-simplistic, but it sure would explain a lot. I've had people explain the whole gender-swapping thing to me over and over and I just do not understand it. What is it about life that can't be experienced by either gender that will change by forcing people to refer to you by the other pronoun? Like to wear frilly dresses? Have at it! Want to get emotional sans physical abuse? Cry at a sad movie! Want to shave your head and join a biker gang? Whatever! As long as you're secure in who you are as a person, it shouldn't matter what gender you are or what gender people think you are. This whole idea smacks of nothing so much as the worst parts of an entitlement complex and attention-whoring and I have yet to meet any trans-person who doesn't completely exemplify both. I don't have to accept you being trans-gendered any more than you have to accept the fact I think it's ridiculous. And, to be perfectly clear, this isn't trans-gender hate, this is spoiled entitled attention whore hate. It's not my fault one category happens to fall entirely within the other. |
|
theolypse
said @ 11:00pm GMT on 10th Mar
[Score:1 Underrated]
No, dipshit. Talisan doesn't think men have mood swings. And jesus-fucking-christ, man, read the fucking article. |
|
theolypse
said @ 11:10pm GMT on 10th Mar
[Score:1 Underrated]
No, I'm sorry. I was way too light, here. Stop breathing. You're stealing perfectly good oxygen from people who are not pustulent wads of scorn and arrogance, who are not wallowing smugly in their own gelatinous mental filth, convinced that their personal "bouquet" is just too sophisticated for this next generation. You are drawing a paycheck, I have no doubt, that could be going to someone capable of straining just hard enough to see beyond the end of their own nose and wiping the shit off their own faces, which you have clearly opted to instead attempt to wipe on other people. |
|
sillybuns
said @ 6:52pm GMT on 8th Mar
[Score:-5 WTF]
-------Popular Tags------- [street] [life] [graffiti] [tags] [stickers] [posters] [walls] [mc] [donalds] [sand] [dna] [genetics] [viral] [wtf] [puppies] [roaches] [blondes] [not_pr0n] [animal] [sounds] [languages] [blend] [blendtec] [blendco] [blendcomatic] [peeing] [on] [your] [party] [poyp] [suffer] [fuckers] [candy] [bitter] [tears] [pop-tart] [comic] [shoes] [karma] [shop] [mods] [ha] [trig] [eats] [penis] [gay] [e-mail] [future] [caffeinemageddon] [pi] [old] [obscure] [html] [htm] [chorp_likes_teh_cock] [buildings] [architecture] [houses] [search] [search-engine] [web2.0] [jobs] [cream-soda] [how-to] [diy] [photography] [trenches] [pr0n] [bacon] [chicken] [texas] [fried] [youtube] [rip] [video] [google] [asian] [food] [baby] [chickens] [salt] [cheese] [rice] [vitale] [technology] [cylinders] [audio] [fiber] [optic] [quantum] [spooky] [casemod] [snowdriftland] [nintendo] [snowman] [game] [flash] [w00t!] [water] [faglicious] [homotastic] [homosexual] [anal] [felching] [nice] [doggie] [cute] [little] [pooch] [maybe] [i] [have] [a] [milkbone] [network] [free] [secure] [p2p] [filesharing] [trench] [should] [not] [be] [number] [three] [lol] [teh] [funny] [death] [niggerspace] [niggaspace] [nigger] [nigga] [stalking] [birfday] [jewbacchus] [hyropolis] [list] [lists] [yesbutnobutyes] [work] [sux] [blog] [test] [straight] [nongay] [naked] [naayyyked] [nsd] [powerball] [masturbationtool] [damnedirish] [irc] [gheypillow] [syphillis] [cephalopods] [jewbacchanalia] [defibrilation] [yes] [fucking] [meant] [defribilation] [defilation] [asshole] [r] [stooopid] [cancer] [egosurfer's] [cofounder] [found] [dead] [:(] [machine] [music] [toys] [engineering] [wish] [me] [luck] [loves] [boys] [psa] [taglines] [audience] [participation] [happy] [birthday] [tiger] [splain] [blindwino] [massive] [fisting] [dildo] [and] [the] [cat's] [in] [cradle] [makin'] [out] [with] [silver] [spoon] [sad] [newjersey] [tourism] [gayporn] [drunk.] [gayporn.] [mexicutioner] [first] [responder] [cop] [training] [underoos] [flv] [80's] [games] [drag] [rudy] [giuliani] [earth] [atlas] [gloves] [webcam] [none] [i'm] [late] [for] [work!!] [nerds] [physics] [fun] [city] [of] [heroes] [issue] [9] [expansion] [weekend] [lolz] [elizabeth] [take] [it] [down] [mayhem] [snake] [mouse] [centipede] [hassellhoff] [scorpions] [words] [numbers] [typing] [africa] [south] [marck] [sparta] [surfers] [hyphy] [supergraham] [youths] [invincibility] [desperate] [housewares] [room] [escape] [russell] [monkeys] [29e] [airline] [complaint] [herpes] [coral] [cobra] [stunlight] [haloscan] [embarassing] [children] [transformers] [rubber] [metal] [megan] [fox] [01-18-08] [signal] [map] [cell] [breakdancer] [8008135] [8====d] [ethics] [reputation] [shame] [chastity] [modesty] [vanity] [futanari] [global_village] [bourgeois_morality] [shoulda_stayed_in_school] [nekked_pix] [galaxy] [zoo] [galaxyzoo] [es] [blogging] [the_web] [new_economy] [freedom_to_innovate] [jumbo_cocks] [oh_yeaahh] [steve] [egg] [graham] [russian] [dirtresort] [donde] [esta] [pancakes] [donnez-moi] [click] [bloody] [vegas] [luxury] [idiocy] [fuck] [play] [ten] [you] [bastards] [cactus] [gravity] [pods] [lame] [social] [networking] [soylent] [green] [bush] [babies] [robots] [cum] [didlo] [appendage] [science] [oo] [ee] [ooh] [ah] [soundwave] [mp3] [player] [radicle] [zombies] [webcomic] [horror] [serial] [fish] [lantern] [animation] [film] [short] [ocean] [peepee-hole] [drains] [canada] [michael] [cook] [urban] [exploration] [myspace] [deezer] [safari] [vasectomy,] [cheating] [internet] [trend] [car] [baked] [cookies] [weird,] [real] [doll,] [amber,] [freak,] [me,] [pwnt] [♫] [vote] [to] [lynch] [aids] [miniatures] [sculpture] [dvd] [futrama] [retarded] [werewolves] [timmay] [nude] [love] [comes] [over] [nerdity] [star] [trek] [steele] [sword] [halloween] [anbu] [hey] [bleb,] [no] [pmar] [this] [time....] [mean] [rkelly] [piss] [talk] [mememememememememe] [extensions] [firefox] [extras] [porn] [photoshop] [russia] [mama] [needs] [new] [pair] [everything] [punch] [eating] [snl] [hardcore] [jewish] [girls] [rappers] [bewbs] [taxidermy] [taxidermists] [fiji] [mermaid] [animals] [man] [mirror] [fux] [need] [post] [more] [lock,] [chain,] [pick,] [latch,] [board,] [logram] [underwater] [hotels] [urbanist] [nifty!] [peculiar] [streets] [maps] [carbomb] [motiongraphics] [motion] [graphics] [slideshow] [toy] [web2.omg] [noses] [aardvarks] [portal] [song] [still] [alive] [drippy] [wet] [am] [legend] [batman] [superman] [billboard] [labs] [egosurfers] [seeqpod] [link] [parser] [ripper] [labia] [mini] [mouth] [eyes] [moutheyes] [eyemouths] [decapitator] [advertisements] [los] [angeles] [images] [youth] [culture] [candid] [even] [red] [bull] [crashed] [ice] [floating] [make] [magazine] [splavovi] [alternative] [living] [condoms] [pics] [bleb's] [image] [must] [know] [keywords] [rolly] [polly] [eat] [them] [up] [yum] [dignity] [village] [tent] [town] [shanty] [sunderland] [kangaroo] [incest] [cars] [lunar] [hair] [embarrassing] [things] [explain] [whilst] ["ocean"] ["pollution"] ["garbage] [patch"] ["fish"] ["sexual] [harassment"] ["dead] [dolphins"] [gya] [oops] [really] [very] [they] [all] [from] [being] [hairy] [bean] [bags] [liberation] [front] [att] [nsa] [balls] [great] [job] [blow] [hand] [foot] [sheep] [cardboard] [spaceship] [rivets] [4chan,] [rockroll,] [scientology,] [hacked,] [cabbages,] [knickers,] [penis,] [astley,] [anonymous] [how] [howcast] [sex] [addict] [jiggaboo] [crime] [jackin101] [plantains] [salty] [garlic] [sweet] [liquordrinks] [booze] [recipes] [mixology] [cocktalian] [dickhats] [dick] [chocolate] [hat] [ceiling] [cat] [paper] [pills] [singles] [us] [nkotb] [reunion] [10] [wierd] [psychological] [studies] [booze,] [drinks,] [alcohol,] [liquor,] [liquordrinks,] [mixing,] [drinking,] [dranking,] [drunking] [crocmusic] [videos] [zoltan] [alice] [robot] [technosexual] [liquordrink] [liquordrank] [liquordrunk] [learning] [edification] [alcohol] [hooch] [shakers] [cocktails] [chemistry] [periodic] [table] [elevator] [fall] [drinks] [drink] [drank] [drunk] [earthbound] [mother] [2] [poop] [dung] [fecal] [matter] [merde] [what's] [that] [smell?] [change] [my] [underwear.] [sand.] [dermatographia] [skin] [art] [ronpaul] [ron] [paul] [paulville] [kermit] [sadkermit] [grahammyovermiami] [fretless] [ecstasy] [school] [lunch] [garter] [birth] [lions] [steroids] [manboobs] [gynomastia] [testicular] [atrophy] [corn] [fed] [deer] [orgasmic] [mind] [people] [liquor] [bar] [bartend] [bartender] [vodka] [gin] [rum] [calvados] [applejack] [hippos] [kongregate] [armorgames] [dinner] [sky] [seperate] [by] [space] [max] [255] [characters] [total] [honesty] [project] [curls] [moonshine] [flood] [restaurant] [china] [fail] [epic] [english] [holy] [get] [laid] [abandoned] [places] [federation] [brain] [research] [facility] [creepy] [voodoo] [funk] [west] [mario] [spaghetti] [toast] [kids] [getoffmylawn] [swords] [satanic] [ritual] [journalisim] [bartenders,] [bartending,] [drinkydrinky,] [dr] [dre] [son] [dies] [20] [pouring] [40s] [smoking] [blunts] [lion] [delicious] [polenta] [is] [disgusting] [but] [horse] [isn't] [bad.] [fresh] [squid] [flip] [sharing] [caring] [grahn] [heller] [glove] [stanford] [avacore] [darpa] [49ers] [aweomse] [door] [key] [boobs] [spray] [say] [hay] [it's] [tree] [pooh] [russel] [kay] [sir] [reporting] [duty] [turbaconducken] [turkey] [duck] [leezurd] [:/] [imisstrigger] [wait-what?] [derinkuyu] [under] [ground] [fraggle] [rock] [caves] [anatolia] [bacon,] [roll] [net] [gun] [instructables] [wars] [force] [trainer] [waves] [eeg] [ping] [pong] [hack] [ganzfeld] [trent] [reznor] [nine] [inch] [nails] [nin] [lights] [hd] [download] [homemade] [chopalopagus] [vegetarian] [strawberry] [icecream] [softserve] [nimoy] [salsa] [sans] [dblds] [bartending] [mixing] [awesomeness] [ranch] [brooklyn] [tunnel] [cobble] [hill] [long] [island] [books] [reading] [caravan] [essex] [mechanised] [cats] [evil] [hemeroscopium] [house] [wfmu] [fma] [cc] [opensource] [creativecommons] [model] [m] [keyboard] [nerdporn] [nyc] [butter] [nipples] [ball] [droppings] [awkward] [family] [photos] [lego] [torture] [book] [photo] [synthesis] [marc] [weber] [tobias] [pentagon] [hacking] [breaking] [entry] [lockpicking] [snow,] [tactical,] [gay,] [eggs,] [germany] [brothel] [all-you-can-eat] [prostitution] [circadian] [rhythm] [hypothalamus] [clock] [conrad] [pipe] [warts] [crotch] [harry] [potter] [reality] [enlightenment] [waking] [internal] [external] [representations] [vaginal] [prolapse] [trendsmap] [twitter] [mapping] [chairman] [mao] [underground] [stephen] [king] [dark] [tower] [discordia] [wind] [through] [keyhole] [tet] [sombra] [maltese] [falcon] [yacth] [perini] [navi] [yachts] [bartering] [sites] [barterquest] [swaptreasure] [rehashclothes] [bookmooch] [swapstyle] [swapthing] [barterbee] [swaptree] [u-exchange] [freecycle] [pixelpoppers] [rpg] [perform] [master] [christ] [anthropomorphism] [wwjd] [god] [auditory] [illusion] [reconstructed] [sound] [fragments] [theta] [wave] [sampling] [brazil] [theives] [sao] [paulo] [bear] [blt] [baloo] [leo] [shere] [khan] [noah's] [ark] [garbage] [cairo] [egypt] [zabbaleen] [bowlingball] [ad] [consumerism] [cleverness] [autism] [self-awareness] [vmpfc] [techniques] [professional] [pickpocket] [titan] [missile] [silo] [tour] [stargate] [studios] [reel] [synaesthesia] [chakras] [context] [49th] [octave] [ask] [metafilter] [best] [january] [schofield] [schizophrenia] [unicru] [answers] [personality] [nanoscale] [symmetry] [golden] [ratio] [1.618] [avatar] [movie] [james] [cameron] [pandora] [immersion] [experience] [ruhal] [ahmed] [brandon] [neely] [shafiq] [rasul] [guantanamo] [3d] [stroke] [mr.] [wizard] [prime] [professor] [marcus] [du-sautoy] [sikuli] [conscious] [subconscious] [unconscious] [shankar] [vedantam] [hidden] [computer] [richard] [feynman] [hydrogen] [simulator] [syndrome] [alzheimer's] [huntington] [trisomy21] [sanskrit] [truth] [ai] [ambiguity] [synapse] [neuron] [nomfet] [skynet] [colors] [feelings] [inner] [peace] [transcendence] [spirituality] [dolphins] [rings] [spirals] [hallucinations] [retino-cortical] [turing] [klüver] [bressloff] [metatron's] [cube] [sacred] [geometry] [human] [default] [mode] [dmn] [energy] [andrea] [fay] [friedman] [guy] [voice] [actor] [sarah] [palin] [retard] [absolue] [zero] [effects] [boomerang] [nebula] [bose-einstein] [condensate] [sight] [restoration] [long-term] [blindness] [singing] [therapy] [acupuncture] [deqi] [potbelly] [harran] [mesopotamia] [fertile] [crscent] [klaus] [schmidt] [behavior] [predictable] [mobility] [patterns] [northeastern] [university] [albert-lászló] [barabási] [center] [complex] [sdo] [v] [nasa] [florida] [sundog] [japan] [too] [far] [hella] [si] [facebook] [learnin] [sippin] [tibetan] [buddhist] [monks] [mary] [brogan] [museum] [tallahassee] [mandala] [impermanence] [will] [ferrell] [fred] [armisen] [chevy] [chase] [dan] [aykroyd] [dana] [carvey] [darrell] [hammond] [consumer] [financial] [protection] [agency] [virtual] [wayfarer] [ireland] [scotland] [belize] [guatemala] [mexico] [alex] [berger] [mindflex] [neural] [pain] [shock] [electrocution] [trailer] [academy] [award] [winning] [scanning] [electron] [microscope] [gschmeissner] [insects] [conan] [o'brien] [killen] [european] [esa] [maxwave] [breman] [caledonian] [cruisers] [waveatlas] [atlantic] [ers-1] [ers-2] [wolfgang] [rosenthal] [gkss] [centre] [wgn] [newsspeak] [tribune] [company] [randy] [michaels] [robert] [feder] [hydra] [uc] [santa] [barbara] [vision] [australian] [news] [half] [spin] [c-span] [library] [archives] [23] [years] [politics] [yale] [haskins] [laboratories] [speech] [perception] [production] [micro-tonal] [harmony] [mission] [amy] [gish] [rhinochill] [nose] [temperature] [neill] [alphabet] [universe] [flow] [alexander] [kashlinsky] [goddard] [flight] [maryland.] [perverse] [de] [ridder] [medical] [miroslaw] [swietek] [dew] [squirrel] [underpants] [sanduk] [ruit] [katmandu] [nepal] [hetauda] [eye] [surgery] [morailty] [right] [wrong] [temporoparietal] [junction] [transcranial] [magnetic] [stimulation] [b3ta] [se] [boing] [reddit] [consumerist] [lifehacker] [slashdot] [core77] [postersandprintsblog] [pierre] [pica] [munduruku] [ferrofluids] [hexayurt] [unplugged] [haiti] [open] [toolbox] [constance] [mcmillen] [final] [ninja] [henry] [rollins] [slash] [coco] [nbc] [epsilon] [aurigae] [john] [monnier] [mister] [rogers] [doc] [lorax] [dr.] [suess] [theodor] [seuss] [geisel] [alchemy] [sun] [path] [britney] [spears] [pre-airbrushed] [neuro] [lit] [crit] [yale-haskins] [teagle] [collegium] [holquist] [muppet] [show] [live] [time] [synesthesia] [what] [happens] [after] [save] [princess] [dmt] [dimethyltryptamine] [spirit] [molecule] [rick] [strassman] [salman] [education] [destroy] [pure] [black] [sunshine] [coffee] [24] [coolest] [designed] [corporate] [offices] [cheat] [homestarrunner] [ninja,] [restaurant,] [most] [dangerous] [food,] [anti-pirate,] [killer] [tofu,] [nom] [noms] [jaume] [paune] [corrective] [lenses] [orthokeratology] [oxytocin] [williams] [zak] [face] [transplant] [llama] [creativity] [belt] [men] [geocitiesizer] [geocities] [male] [companion] [escorts] [helicopter] [blade] [frequency] [r.] [stanley] [leon] [chua] [erik] [martin] [boy] [kindle] [highlighted] [passages] [big] [brother] [hivemind] [lupe] [fuentes] [carlos] [simon-timmerman] [innocent] [president] [barack] [obama] [jay] [leno] [2010] [white] [correspondents] [sonic] [cloud] [beard] [pac-man] [halo] [megaman] [t.] [nathan] [roane] [composer] [fake] [cartoon] [polyscience] [circulators] [sous-vide] [beer] [cooler] [online] [armor] [dutu] [mike] [nash] [aperture] [huge] [success] [daniel] [durstewitz] [heidelberg] [mel] [slater] [barcelona] [spain] [juniper] [turn] [world] [guillaume] [laetitia] [miami] [ushuaia] [vincent] [ocasla] [sim] [3000] [magnasanti] [disney's] [princesses] [reimagined] [heroines] [panera] [bread] [shaich] [saint] [louis] [cares] [cafe] [gaz] [gary] [regan] [wondrich] [sobieski] [artificial] [intelligence] [bookmarks] [python] [emotions] [anger] [joy] [fear] [sadness] [semantics] [war] [language] [drinkin] [spirits] [sweden] [karolinska] [institute] [betty] [rue] [mcclanahan] [jokes] [airfish] [switzerland] [dübendorf] [christa] [jordi] [empa] [calvin] [minus] [hobbes] [bill] [watterson] [zach] [oprah] [dopamine] [stimuli] [reward] [prediction] [serotonin] [band] [3] [harmonix] [inflatable] [kart] [jvsc] [lab] [perceptions] [hawking] [perspective] [bp] [spill] [gulf] [howard] [engel] [oliver] [sacks] [benny] [cooperman] [mind's] [dave] [chappelle] [lipton] [inside] [actors] [studio] [hamster] [las] [goce] [geoid] [reiner] [rummel] [plato] [kennedy] [manchester] [smart] [sheets] [harvard] [mit] [daniela] [rus] [sea] [angels] [devils] [clione] [limacine] [limacina] [helicina] [natalia] [chervyakova] [pride] [parade] [protests] [marin] [foundation] [pipol] [smasher] [meditation] [herbert] [benson] [yoga] [relaxation] [last] [airbender] [m.] [night] [shyamalan] [tau] [manifesto] [circle] [constant] [bob] [palais] [bbs] [documentary] [jason] [scott] [katrin] [stapput] [goethe] [robins] [fields] [magnetoreception] [woot] [woooot] [woooooooot] [wöt] [app] [inventor] [android] [prenominal] [postnominal] [construction] [belly] [buttons] [athletic] [domination] [gorillas] [javascript] [html5] [banned] [partial] [terms] [endearment] [jagdeep] [rajput] [madhuri] [corbett] [national] [park] [india] [train] [track] [repair] [linguistics] [neurology] [glass] [liquid] [nervous] [system] [marian] [c.] [diamond] [arnold] [b.] [scheibel] [ibm] [dharmendra] [s.] [modha] [19th] [amendment] [woman] [suffrage] [fire] [tornado] [paolo] [funny,] [dating,] [weirdness] [kinect] [ir] [radar] [night-vision] [goggles] [reimagining] [4chan] [alt] [ideas,] [nudity,] [monkey] [lies,] [metaphors] [symbolism] [dinosaurs] [tyrannosaurus] [rex] [feathers] [breathe] [relax] [placebo] [rituals] [sham] [drugs] [ted] [kaptchuk] [osher] [wars,] [north] [oulu] [finland] [valkee] [egosurfers.net] [sold] [mri] [mcgill] [tone] [deaf] [amusia] [blind] [kevin] [mitchell] [site] [magnitude] [memory] [palaces] [method] [loci] [read] [cock] [d6] [g6] [herps] [recognition] [prussian] [blue] [lamb] [lynx] [blleeehhhhwuehhwehh] [parody] [someone] [else] [especially] [women] [dear] [toadington] [wtfry] [zealotry] [barratry] [varletry] [rocketry] [toiletry] |
|
rndmnmbr
said @ 11:15pm GMT on 8th Mar
We're doing can lottery for dinner! Close your eyes and grab a random can out of the pantry! This... this reads "Garden Fresh Worms". ...who's up for pizza? |
|
mechanical contrivance
said @ 1:11am GMT on 9th Mar
Well, why did you buy worms if you don't like them? Also, how could they be fresh if they're canned? |
|
Dissonant
said @ 2:07am GMT on 9th Mar
...I'm up for pizza... |
|
rndmnmbr
said @ 4:09am GMT on 10th Mar
Marketing, I suspect. |
|
azazel
said @ 2:33am GMT on 9th Mar
[Score:3 Underrated]
Let's try this again. Moleculor: When you say stuff like 'that small minority shouldn't rely on others to change their behaviour' you're reinforcing the persecution of transgender people. You're saying that they're not worth the effort of trying to change your behaviour. You also said you'd be willing to try, though, but I'll come back to that. But you also say "If they look slightly mannish they're a non-valid source of sexual arousal", which again lends itself very well to dehumanising the people we're talking about. "Non-valid source" doesn't sound like we're talking about humans at all any longer, but some kind of items instead of real people. You even bring it up in a post about the redhead, where later you say that you wouldn't have any problems referring to her as a woman because she looks like a woman. The thing is, this is not minor to transgender people. When you say that trying to remember how someone wishes to be addressed is 'really minor', you're again saying that they're not worth the respect or effort from you. This is important. A close friend of mine said that if she hadn't been allowed to switch gender she'd killed herself rather than live as a man. What you're doing is saying "well, but he still has some male features and if I shouldn't have to make an effort in calling him by his chosen gender." Do you honestly not see how a statement like I'm not going to completely reprogram the entire way my brain works for 100% of the population to protect myself from a person who's going to jump down my throat for misusing a pronoun.sounds when you consider that these people not only live in bodies they don't consider their own, but also live in fear of reprisal, physical violence or becoming pariahs when they finally get a body that they're comfortable with? Do you have any idea how difficult it must be to actually tell someone that you're a woman in a man's body? Telling your parents? Your friends? Your class mates? It's so important to these people that they put their entire lives at stake to become what they actually are. People who risk being killed because of their choices. And you're saying that it's completely unimportant. It shouldn't matter if they still look like a man in your eyes -- if they want you to call them a woman, you should make the effort. Your stance up to this point is pure. fucking. bullshit. (I will note that I'm slightly disrespectful to transgendered people here; every person's situation is different. But I think it's safe to say that the majority of them do face really tough times when 'coming out' as transgenders.) Later on you specify that you didn't actually mean it like that -- you're not saying you're sorry for what you said though -- but you actually meant that the very, very small minority of transgender people that will jump down your throat for accidentally using an incorrect pronoun should just take it and shut up and because of that you shouldn't have to make an effort for the rest of the transgender population. That might not be what you meant, but that's how it reads. Your statements are also quite contradictory. You say you're all for equal rights, but you also say that how you address transgender people are unimportant. These two do not go hand in hand. Even if you narrow it down to mean that transgender people that will blow a fuse over incorrect pronouns you're not standing on a very strong argument. You later on backtrack some and say that you won't reprogram the way your brain works for the people who will jump down your throat when you misuse a pronoun. Again you're missing the overarching point of this discussion: you should make an effort for everyone, not just the ones that will explode. This is what most of us have been pushing for, I think. You should make a special unique case for EVERY transgender person, not just the ones that are likely to get angry with you. Because they ALL think it's important. I think it's great that gender doesn't matter to you. The truth of it however, is that for the vast majority of people it matters, and you should respect that. You shouldn't hide behind a shield of 'but it doesn't matter to me so I should be allowed to say what I please. Which again I don't think you meant but it's how it comes across. Other people have said pretty much the same thing, although more eloquently than I ever could. I always feel inferior when posting on SE. Stop being so afraid of the very, very, very small minority of transgender people that will blow a fuse if you misuse a pronoun. Do your best to be respectful of everyone. People make mistakes, it happens -- if you come across a radical just scratch it up to bad luck and move on. Yes, in a worst case scenario your reputation might take a hit, but we're looking at such astronomically small numbers that it's silly to try and defend your stance with them. What I'm trying to say is that you should try and "reprogram your brain." Not because of the ones that will blow a fuse, but for all of them. It's part of being a decent human being. Stop treating transgender people (or women, for that matter) like items, they're humans and should be treated, addressed and thought of as such. "Reprogramming your brain" sounds so weird. Let's just say "you should try and treat everyone how they want to be treated" instead -- which is what this is all about, and also what you claim to have been saying that you would. That, however, is not how it came across. I hope you can see that. Think before you speak is always a good idea, and with topics like these you should probably think through what you're posting as well, and how the other party might view what you're saying. And finally; I don't think I've been overly hostile towards you. I really do think it's fairly easy to realize how someone wants to be addressed. Yes, at very few times you might have some difficulties, but it's not very hard to address people without knowing their gender. I also think you're way too scared of being persecuted for getting things wrong. If there's ANY group we can actually say 'shit sux, deal with it', it's to cisgendered people, and cisgendered males in particular. If ever there was a group with privileges, it'd be us. And lastly, because you posted something before I had the time to post this (here: http://sensibleerection.com/comment.php/86056/2052212 ): Yes. But since he has a, as you put it, 'pussy' he's obviously a woman to you. No he's not, stop fucking speaking for me. I'm sorry? You've been championing your right to call transgendered women 'men' for this entire thread and now you take exception to me making a hyperbolic example? Because your examples have been down to earth and realistic all along? Let me remind you that your entire argument has been, apart from denigrating transgender people -- intentional or not -- that a small portion of a miniscule population of transgenders might be angry with you for misusing a pronoun? First of all, let's cut to something you said: Physical appearance has no bearing on gender. Yes, it has. Research in this area is pretty conclusive: gender must be considered in research on physical appearance effects. Tell a transgendered person that physical appearance has no bearing on their gender and see how it'll go. We wouldn't even have reconstructive surgery if it didn't. Fuck that. My comment about a transgendered man with female genitalia being a woman to you stems from the argument you were championing before (which you have now backtracked); that if they look like a woman they are a woman and if they look like a man they are a man. I just switched the argument around to be about transgendered men instead of transgendered women. If you think of a transgendered woman as man because she has male attributes, the opposite should hold true as well -- maybe an unfair assumption on my part. Does it? You never did answer my question on whether you'd call him 'she' or 'he' either. Anyway, it's late and I kind of butchered the point of that post. I'm tired. I'm sorry I extrapolated your posts into something you would say, but can you blame me? Look at what you've said -- objectively -- and tell me that what I said wasn't what you would have expected someone to say if they brought up the arguments you've used. |
|
arrowhen
said @ 4:46pm GMT on 9th Mar
[Score:1 Informative]
Ladies and/or gentlemen (your choice!), thank you for watching the latest exciting episode of "Everyone Gang Up On The Guy With The Unpopular Opinion." How about a big round of applause for this week's contestant: Moleculor! |
|
foobar
said @ 5:44pm GMT on 9th Mar
I believe Rush Limbaugh gets that distinction this week. |
|
cb361
said @ 6:22pm GMT on 9th Mar
Every week is a good week to hate Rush Limbaugh. |
|
arrowhen
said @ 6:59pm GMT on 9th Mar
I usually forget the irrelevant old windbag is even still on the air until he says something stupid enough to get made fun of on the Daily Show. |
|
skainsmate
said @ 7:10pm GMT on 9th Mar
[Score:2 Funny]
Sheesh, another victim class! |
|
arrowhen
said @ 7:37pm GMT on 9th Mar
I flunked victim class. Ostensibly it was for "not doing my homework", but I suspect the teacher was prejudiced against the motivationally challenged. |
|
dietcoke
said @ 11:44pm GMT on 9th Mar
[Score:-3]
trans gender or sex change peeps really do not deserve to be called full women, Unless you have to deal with cellulite ya will never, ever understand what it is to be female. on the other hand, I can indeed see why men cut their balls off,take hormones and pretend to be women, us gals have most of things alot easier then men. Men did get the mucky end of the stick gender wise and have a rougher road in life. |
|
arrowhen
said @ 12:58am GMT on 10th Mar
Seriously? |
|
blindnerd
said @ 1:57am GMT on 10th Mar
Totes! |
|
dietpepsi
said @ 3:44am GMT on 10th Mar
[Score:1 Informative]
Nah, just kidding. |
|
theolypse
said @ 5:13pm GMT on 10th Mar
Yeah. Cellulite. That connective tissue that exists in all human bodies. That's the real clincher. Men aren't ever vain. At least not native men. Maybe those degenerate euros. |