@realcaseyrollins Is this a knock against trans people?
🔵
@hrisskar What makes you think it's a knock on trans people?
@realcaseyrollins Sounds like you're mocking them to me, especially your sarcastic "magic trick" & "I thought that was all I had to do to change my chromosomes" remarks. 💢
@hrisskar I'm not mocking trans people, I'm mocking the culture at large for deluding themselves when they should know better.
I'm pretty sure that you see that I'm right, else you would probably be arguing on the merits of my point.
@realcaseyrollins You present neither a merit nor a point, therefore there is nothing for me to do but roll my eyes at your #transphobia and walk away, shaking my head.
🇳🇱
Is your pint here that people who transition from men to women through hormone, surgical or other steps do not deserve the respect of being called by their gender and should be instead called by their sex at birth?
What is your point here exactly?
I dont think its hate so much as bigotry... The language we use has not in the history of language ever been about picking pronouns by a persons DNA or sex. It has always historicaly been choosen based on a persons gender, not their sex. Even dictionaries from 1800s in english explicitly state as much.
Well ill try to explain the bigotry.. what purpose are you trying to serve by calling someone who is trying very hard to represent the female gender that they are not a female.. you say its because its not nice to let someone lie to themselves so lets take that at face value.. whats the lie?
Do you think they dont KNOW they have male DNA, obviously they do.. so no lie there.
You think they dont KNOW they were born with one set of genetalia or the other? They do so no lie there.
So where is the lie? There isnt one.. The language they use is even the same language we have used for thousands of years, so its not a linguistic correction either...
So what purpose does it server, where is the kind "truth" that is suppose to be served? I dont see it.
Yes that would be. But they are choosing pronouns and using the classical language which defines gender not sex. So how is it a lie, they never claimed in any way their sex was any different than it was. They are simply using their gender as everyone always has.
It is often, though not always, the case that gender and sex are the same. So one can, as you said **assume** that by default. But as your own wording jsut stated it is an *asumption** when an assumption turns out to be untrue it looks pretty childish (and in this case bigoted) to assume the OTHER person is lying rather than you simply making an incorrect assumption.
As I just stated, because you made an assumption (that a persons gender and sex were the same) and when you find with an individual that assumption was wrong your response is to call them a liar rather than to recognize the assumption will often fail you assumptions tend to do.. Thats childish and in this case likely driven by bigotry.
No lie was told, they expressed their gender and told you what it was, their actual gender. You just happened to get it wrong because you assumed they fit the majority where gender and sex were the same... So yea
Well I think its reasonable to expect that in 80% of cases a persons sex will match their gender, in 20% of cases it wont (or whatever the real numbers are).. I think it becomes unreasonable when you assume one **must** follow the other and if it doesnt it is a lie.
That makes no sense.. mae and female doesnt have a single definition. Why would you feel you have the right to be the authority on some words that were defined long before you were born. You cant beleive words mean something different than they mean.
Male and female have two seperate definitions. depending on context. If you care about a persons penis and vagina (such a doctor might, or someone about to have sexual intercourse) then yes you might use male and female to talk about a persons genitals. The other definition is the one we use day to day where it is used to refer to gender. You dont get to pick one definition as "right" and the other "wrong". thats not how language works, unless you have some agenda (the bigotry).
To me if someone insists they are going to use pronouns to talk about peoples genitals it is a rather "sick" mentality IMO.. its basically like if you said "Hi, Even though you look like a woman I'm obsessed with your genitals and thus will make sure i reference your penis every chance i can by insisting I call you he"... to me people who do that are probably gay and in denial even with themselves. I mean why else would they be so obsessed with a persons junk they feel the need to reference it in everything they say. It makes no sense linguisticly on any level really unless your a doctor.
You can be an authority on what it means, english professionals who have studied the etymology of the word would be such an authority. What you cant do (without appearing bigoted in this case) is to make up new definitions for the words and apply it to others causing them distress, convetying no truth or insight, and ultimately only doing harm.
The reason it appear to be bigotry is in the nuance. Going out of your way to create a new definition for words that is in contradiction with the historical usage where the new definitions are not really practical or useful in anyway and clearly hurtful is going to smell a lot like bigotry.
Yes as the definition makes clear, yes of course you can.. You can have a male sex and a female gender, you can be both depending on what definition you use.
This is not at all unusual for language mind you, that two seperate words can both describe the same thing in different context. Hell some words are even auto-antonyms, a single word can have definitions each being the opposite of the other.
Why in the world would you think this would be an impossibility is the real question?
@freemo @hrisskar Because I don't think that something can be simultaneously hot and cold if green and blue. However, if we use different metrics to measure these, we can arrive at different conclusions.
Again, it boils down to whether we thing being a man or a woman is dictated by sex or gender. I think it's dictated by sex, so of course I'm a bigot. We just disagree on this subject.
They arent simultaniously hot and cold, they are simultaniously male and female however in different categories. In fact this argument feels a bit desperate let me explain why in a more nuanced and accurate metaphore than simply hot and cold.
With male and female while these are opposites as we said you can be male in one category (gender) and female in another (sex)... how does that look when we look at other opposites..
So lets take "bad and good" two similar opposites. Is it possible to be good at math, and bad at history? Obviously, of course! but how can that be, I thought something cant be both simultaneously good and bad, so it must be a lie! Obviously not.
The logic is simple, it is entirely possible and completely normal in a host of topics to have opposite qualities in differing categories, in this case gender and sex. To try to claim this is impossible because male and female are opposites feels it is constructed out of dogmatic desperation to justify a ideology rather than an objective analysis.
Also and this is where the bigotry comes in... you seem to be under the impression that a person can or should have the opinion if sex or gender determines if your a male or female...
Thats like asking "should history or math determine if your good or bad". Obviously its neither and if you go around calling people who are good at math liars because they are bad at history, well it just makes you look like a judgemental jerk.
🏳️🌈
@realcaseyrollins
Except your screenshot leaves out the part of the definition you are trying to pretend doesnt exist. As #3 states it is also used to describe feminine outwarda appearence and not restricted to sex. Which is exactly what i said earlier, both definitions are valid and you cant just pretend one doesnt exist and anyone who uses it is a liar.
@hrisskar