As far as I can tell, we don't actually disagree except that when you say your shit about the exact scientific meanings of biological sex, it isn't what laypeople hear. They hear incredibly shitty and harmful reinforcement of their stupid hang-up over dangly vs. non-dangley bits. It's like... you aren't wrong, but you are right on a level that enables other people to be wrong?
This. It comes from their inability to understand that sex and gender are different things and don't have to match up.
Pete, remember the conversation we had about "Hey, do you want to...?" and how it gives cues to outside observers that may be incorrect? This is the same kind of issue. Even if YOU know what you mean, and I know what you mean, outside people might look at it as validation for a different viewpoint. That's why some people get upset.
Can we just say that sex and gender are complicated issues, especially when we try to define biological vs. psychological vs. social vs. whatever else, and leave it at that?
Based on what Gabe said and the email posted on his site, he had no malice in his words. The fact is that he treats someone who presents themselves as a woman like a woman and leaves it at that. That's basically all that matters. The physical/biological/etc. stuff really only matters in medical cases where your genetics and/or your actual "dangly bits" may actually influence your health in some way or another.
Really? because I thought there was a really REALLY clear biological definition of what a woman is, and what a man is, male or female, aside from what you feel you are. Saying cisgender is pandering, I'm sorry, but I'm pretty sure the majority of people are "cisgendered" at this moment in history. You have a penis, you are a man, you have a vagina, you are a woman; it's in the dictionary and that is the standard definition, what ever your sexual orientation might be.
You gringos and your PC bullshit.
Hell yeah man, fucking right on brother *epic high five for the win*
Its a real pain when people fly off the handle without taking everything into stock. It seems like a case of not understanding the issue rather than a dislike or hatred. But everyones first response was to decry Gabe and call him a monster. Hell people on this forum made sure to distance themselves as quickly as they could before learning all the facts. Its pretty shitty really.
I love it when dyslexia makes a pun for me. The best has to have been in my second diss draft where I had spelled hopping and hoping. That gave the Wars of the Roses and amusing turn.
As far as I can tell, we don't actually disagree except that when you say your shit about the exact scientific meanings of biological sex, it isn't what laypeople hear...
In my own conversations, I never have and never will give a fuck about what laypeople think.
Sex is one thing. Gender is a completely different thing.
There is no intrinsic relationship between the two whatsoever in my mind. Hell, gender means different things in different cultures. Many "masculine" behaviors in Europe are considered "feminine" in the US.
At the same time, how someone wants to be identified, and whether other people with a similar desire for the same identification will actually identify them, is an intractable problem if people are caught up in these entirely arbitrary identities.
You, as a person, can only influence the you that exists in my brain so far. That you in me is mine to do with as I wish, consciously or otherwise.
Laypeople can wallow in their ignorance or be taught. But if I'm actually going to debate something, I have no tolerance for muddled definition bullshit. If you conflate gender and sex in a real debate, then there's no point in debating you. ;^)
The real question is: what do we do about bathrooms?
Honestly? All bathrooms should be unisex, and that's that.
As far as I can tell, we don't actually disagree except that when you say your shit about the exact scientific meanings of biological sex, it isn't what laypeople hear...
In my own conversations, I never have and never will give a fuck about what laypeople think.
If you don't give a fuck if the people you are talking to you understands the words that you are using, it just makes you a poor communicator.
It's like, if you were explaining the rules of D&D to somebody who played RPGs but doesn't know D&D, you don't, say, open with the assumption that the other person knows what THAC0 is. With expertise needs to come the understanding that not everyone is an expert. If everyone could understand things at the same level you do, you wouldn't be an expert.
When most people use the term "biological sex" in this debate, they aren't using it the way WhaleShark was, because their arguments are bigoted garbage couched in pseudoscience, and he is a highly educated professional. As a communicator, you have to know not just what your words mean, but what your words mean to the people you are talking to. It's simply a fact that he's an expert in biology and my highest credentials are grade 12 bio who gets into a lot of arguments with transphobic people, and he can't talk to me with the same words he'd talk to his peers, at least not without disclaimer.
Things are bad because people like me are stupid. If you are unwilling to speak in ways that stupid people understand while talking to stupid people, things will never get better. Do you honestly prefer being aloof in a shitty world over being slightly less aloof in a less shitty world?
If you don't give a fuck if the people you are talking to you understands the words that you are using, it just makes you a poor communicator.
One could say the same applies equally, if not more so, to misusing terms and then claiming correctness via popularity of the misuse. While it might be arguably true in regular language, when you're in a discussion involving specific technical or scientific terms, it simply doesn't apply. If someone doesn't understand a technical or scientific term in a debate on a technical or scientific topic, that's on them, not the person using the term - They can ask for an explanation, or go and find out, but crying foul on the other person for using correct terminology in accordance with the accepted definitions is just silly.
To borrow your own example, imagine if you were explaining the rules of D&D as you said, but when you explain THAC0 to the person, they then said "No, I think it means To help a Crone, and Barry and John agree with me, so you must respect that." If you insist that it means "To Hit Armor Class 0" despite the majority of the group preferring their version, does that mean you're a bad communicator, or that they're simply assigning the wrong definition to the term?
If we go with the method you describe, we end up with fucking idiotic shit that would and should be laughed out of any serious debate, like serious fighting for TransAbleisim(An otherwise physically fit and whole person who self-identifies as physically disabled and should thus be treated as such), or Tulpas/headmates(which I can't decide if it lies under the umbrella of imaginary friend or legitimate mental illness).
As much as you know I'm with you on this stuff, dude, I can't stand the silly fucking game of quasi-intellectual academic costume parties that all this has become, particularly the tumblr and reddit SJWs. This isn't intelligent debate, it's not even debate, it's just seeing who in the culture of victimhood can misappropriate real terms or make up pseudo-academic terms on the fly better than the other guy to see who gets the blue ribbon in this week's Circus of Privilege.
As far as I can tell, we don't actually disagree except that when you say your shit about the exact scientific meanings of biological sex, it isn't what laypeople hear...
In my own conversations, I never have and never will give a fuck about what laypeople think.
If you don't give a fuck if the people you are talking to you understands the words that you are using, it just makes you a poor communicator.
I don't debate people like that anymore. I'm too old for that shit.
When most people use the term "biological sex" in this debate, they aren't using it the way WhaleShark was, because their arguments are bigoted garbage couched in pseudoscience, and he is a highly educated professional.
No one here has (or should have) that problem.
Things are bad because people like me are stupid. If you are unwilling to speak in ways that stupid people understand while talking to stupid people, things will never get better. Do you honestly prefer being aloof in a shitty world over being slightly less aloof in a less shitty world?
Using the term precisely and correctly gets my long term message across better. Most of those people are beyond reason anyway, and things will change when they die of old age.
But, trying to get "straight" people to self-identify as "cis" is a lost cause. If anything, trying to use that term, and being offended if it isn't used by someone, is worse for the cause than any correct use of other words like sex or gender.
If people could just deal with seeing other people naked, this wouldn't be a problem. Modesty is such a bizarre and useless social construct.
It all goes back to when Adam and Eve ate and apple. After that they covered themselves with leaves, and then everyone else did too. So if you don't eat apples, your allowed to be naked.
Or you just drop "trans." Trans- is used to modify the "default," and was originally used to mean "altered from original state."
Since "cis" means "in line with societal norms," you can accomplish the same thing by just modifying the word when it differs from the norm.
Some see that practice as othering (and I understand how - the concept of a "default" is branding), which is why "cis" came about.
But it's far from a "super useful" term.
Seeing how it's Throwback Thursday, I'm going to reach back a page and go ahead and point out that if you remove "trans" from "transgendered", you would be saying that a person is "gendered" which isn't really the most useful of demarcations.
As a privileged, white, CIS, able, penis having, both testy having, non-bald, brown-occulared, brown-haired, self-identifying male who just so happens to currently be dating a quasi-privileged, white, CIS, able, non-penis having (known as NOPENIS), non-testy having (known as NOBALLS), brown-occulared, brown-haired, self-identifying female; I have nothing to contribute to the conversation.
I mostly agree there is way too much jargon and stupid bullshit complexes over this stuff, but I personally find "cis" to be a very useful term. It's good to have a term for "not trans" without saying "normal", which is kind of a dick move, especially when talking with trans people.
I mostly agree there is way too much jargon and stupid bullshit complexes over this stuff, but I personally find "cis" to be a very useful term. It's good to have a term for "not trans" without saying "normal", which is kind of a dick move, especially when talking with trans people.
I mostly agree there is way too much jargon and stupid bullshit complexes over this stuff, but I personally find "cis" to be a very useful term. It's good to have a term for "not trans" without saying "normal", which is kind of a dick move, especially when talking with trans people.
Or you just drop "trans." Trans- is used to modify the "default," and was originally used to mean "altered from original state."
Since "cis" means "in line with societal norms," you can accomplish the same thing by just modifying the word when it differs from the norm.
Some see that practice as othering (and I understand how - the concept of a "default" is branding), which is why "cis" came about.
But it's far from a "super useful" term.
Seeing how it's Throwback Thursday, I'm going to reach back a page and go ahead and point out that if you remove "trans" from "transgendered", you would be saying that a person is "gendered" which isn't really the most useful of demarcations.
Also wait a damn second, that's not what "trans" or "cis" mean... what in the helllllllllllllllo
I mostly agree there is way too much jargon and stupid bullshit complexes over this stuff, but I personally find "cis" to be a very useful term. It's good to have a term for "not trans" without saying "normal", which is kind of a dick move, especially when talking with trans people.
As a privileged, white, CIS, able, penis having, both testy having, non-bald, brown-occulared, brown-haired, self-identifying male who just so happens to currently be dating a quasi-privileged, white, CIS, able, non-penis having (known as NOPENIS), non-testy having (known as NOBALLS), brown-occulared, brown-haired, self-identifying female; I have nothing to contribute to the conversation.
Comments
Pete, remember the conversation we had about "Hey, do you want to...?" and how it gives cues to outside observers that may be incorrect? This is the same kind of issue. Even if YOU know what you mean, and I know what you mean, outside people might look at it as validation for a different viewpoint. That's why some people get upset.
Based on what Gabe said and the email posted on his site, he had no malice in his words. The fact is that he treats someone who presents themselves as a woman like a woman and leaves it at that. That's basically all that matters. The physical/biological/etc. stuff really only matters in medical cases where your genetics and/or your actual "dangly bits" may actually influence your health in some way or another.
Edit; Also fuck you whity.
Sex is one thing.
Gender is a completely different thing.
There is no intrinsic relationship between the two whatsoever in my mind. Hell, gender means different things in different cultures. Many "masculine" behaviors in Europe are considered "feminine" in the US.
At the same time, how someone wants to be identified, and whether other people with a similar desire for the same identification will actually identify them, is an intractable problem if people are caught up in these entirely arbitrary identities.
You, as a person, can only influence the you that exists in my brain so far. That you in me is mine to do with as I wish, consciously or otherwise.
Laypeople can wallow in their ignorance or be taught. But if I'm actually going to debate something, I have no tolerance for muddled definition bullshit. If you conflate gender and sex in a real debate, then there's no point in debating you. ;^)
The real question is: what do we do about bathrooms?
Honestly? All bathrooms should be unisex, and that's that.
It's like, if you were explaining the rules of D&D to somebody who played RPGs but doesn't know D&D, you don't, say, open with the assumption that the other person knows what THAC0 is. With expertise needs to come the understanding that not everyone is an expert. If everyone could understand things at the same level you do, you wouldn't be an expert.
When most people use the term "biological sex" in this debate, they aren't using it the way WhaleShark was, because their arguments are bigoted garbage couched in pseudoscience, and he is a highly educated professional. As a communicator, you have to know not just what your words mean, but what your words mean to the people you are talking to. It's simply a fact that he's an expert in biology and my highest credentials are grade 12 bio who gets into a lot of arguments with transphobic people, and he can't talk to me with the same words he'd talk to his peers, at least not without disclaimer.
Things are bad because people like me are stupid. If you are unwilling to speak in ways that stupid people understand while talking to stupid people, things will never get better. Do you honestly prefer being aloof in a shitty world over being slightly less aloof in a less shitty world?
To borrow your own example, imagine if you were explaining the rules of D&D as you said, but when you explain THAC0 to the person, they then said "No, I think it means To help a Crone, and Barry and John agree with me, so you must respect that." If you insist that it means "To Hit Armor Class 0" despite the majority of the group preferring their version, does that mean you're a bad communicator, or that they're simply assigning the wrong definition to the term?
If we go with the method you describe, we end up with fucking idiotic shit that would and should be laughed out of any serious debate, like serious fighting for TransAbleisim(An otherwise physically fit and whole person who self-identifies as physically disabled and should thus be treated as such), or Tulpas/headmates(which I can't decide if it lies under the umbrella of imaginary friend or legitimate mental illness).
As much as you know I'm with you on this stuff, dude, I can't stand the silly fucking game of quasi-intellectual academic costume parties that all this has become, particularly the tumblr and reddit SJWs. This isn't intelligent debate, it's not even debate, it's just seeing who in the culture of victimhood can misappropriate real terms or make up pseudo-academic terms on the fly better than the other guy to see who gets the blue ribbon in this week's Circus of Privilege.
But, trying to get "straight" people to self-identify as "cis" is a lost cause. If anything, trying to use that term, and being offended if it isn't used by someone, is worse for the cause than any correct use of other words like sex or gender.