The Gender Non-binary debate.

[TurboHatchback]

gregs656 said:

TurboHatchback said:

If I knew you and you legally changed your name to Jemima then I'd happily call you that, I would refer to you as he/him or they/them in discussion though and would have no idea who people were talking about if they referred to you as she/her, my understanding of the words he, him etc is to denote the subject as the holder of a penis.

You said this earlier in the thread and it still staggers me. I just do not understand the rational behind wilfully choosing not to recognise what is in front of you.

That's just it though, calling them a woman to me is willfully misunderstanding what is in front of me, calling them a man is correctly understanding what is in front of me. To me it's like being told to refer to an MX5 as a van, a spanner as a garden shovel or a white rastafarian as black, it's simply incorrect.

gregs656 said:

TurboHatchback said:

We as humans have invented language as a means of conveying information, we have associated specific meanings with specific words in order to accurately represent concepts and entities. If we just abandon the meanings of words in order to avoid offending people then the word itself becomes meaningless.

I have to say that your understanding of language as something fixed and specific is not my understanding of language at all. I understand language primarily as a shared, plastic and often vague tool which allows me to interpret and express my environment. I firmly believe that the meaning of words can be found in how they are used. It is clear language changes over time, so it is some what odd to defend a particular snapshot of it as the 'correct' version - in the same way it would be odd to say the current course and contents of a river is the 'correct' version. What is important is what is current.

So to go back to my previous point - to insist on calling what is clearly a woman 'he', or what is clearly a man 'she', does not make you a defender of language, and it does not make you easier to understand - it is nothing more than an unnecessary cruelty which is all about you and nothing about them. And for what?

Well I guess our approach to language is different then. I am a factual, logical sort of person (software engineer by trade) and to me language is not vague and airy fairy but concrete and definite. This whole gender agenda seems entirely pushed by those inclined to the liberal arts and humanities, it speaks or a very different mindset. To me refusing to indulge a delusion is not cruel, quite the opposite in fact as to do so simply reinforces said delusion which is inherently damaging..

If we just decide to reallocate the words male/female and all associated terminology we no longer have any means of representing the concept. Are we to scrap all medical textbooks because it's no longer PC to refer to male and female physiology? Are we to rename all clothing sections to tits/no tits because referring to who they'll actually fit is no longer allowed? Are we to invent new words to represent what we already have perfectly good words for? And like you ask, for what?

[ClockworkCupcake]

TurboHatchback said:

Well I guess our approach to language is different then. I am a factual, logical sort of person (software engineer by trade) and to me language is not vague and airy fairy but concrete and definite. This whole gender agenda seems entirely pushed by those inclined to the liberal arts and humanities, it speaks or a very different mindset. To me refusing to indulge a delusion is not cruel, quite the opposite in fact as to do so simply reinforces said delusion which is inherently damaging..

I'm a professional software engineer with 22+ years commercial C++ development experience, with a BSc in Applied Physics and MSc in Software Engineering, and I completely disagree with you.

So put that in your compiler and hit Build.

[p2c]

Another IT girl by profession, its pretty much the go to industry for trans people not working in other sciences or the military, in some circles it almost an expectation. I think those in the arts are in the minority, we tend to shy away from public scrutiny which the arts tend to attract

[wiggy001]

TurboHatchback said:

Well I guess our approach to language is different then. I am a factual, logical sort of person (software engineer by trade) and to me language is not vague and airy fairy but concrete and definite. This whole gender agenda seems entirely pushed by those inclined to the liberal arts and humanities, it speaks or a very different mindset. To me refusing to indulge a delusion is not cruel, quite the opposite in fact as to do so simply reinforces said delusion which is inherently damaging..

As a fellow geek (20 years ERP development experience) I'm VERY black and white about most things (much to the annoyance of my wife!). I can understand transgenderism (is that the right word?) - it's on the same train of thought as "some people are straight, some are gay" to me. I wouldn't insult a transgender person in the way you describe just as I wouldn't call a gay man deluded.

Gender "fluidity" is something I struggle with. The only "issue" I have with it is when things like the TFL announcement or mixed sex toilets or teaching about gender fluidity to kids makes the press because, as already mentioned, it feels like an agenda is being pushed. And that goes against my principle of "live and let live".

But you know what? My black and white view of the world says that there are things I understand and things I don't, and I don't worry about either unless I feel they have an affect on my life or that of my family.

[clonmult]

wiggy001 said:

TurboHatchback said:

Well I guess our approach to language is different then. I am a factual, logical sort of person (software engineer by trade) and to me language is not vague and airy fairy but concrete and definite. This whole gender agenda seems entirely pushed by those inclined to the liberal arts and humanities, it speaks or a very different mindset. To me refusing to indulge a delusion is not cruel, quite the opposite in fact as to do so simply reinforces said delusion which is inherently damaging..

As a fellow geek (20 years ERP development experience) I'm VERY black and white about most things (much to the annoyance of my wife!). I can understand transgenderism (is that the right word?) - it's on the same train of thought as "some people are straight, some are gay" to me. I wouldn't insult a transgender person in the way you describe just as I wouldn't call a gay man deluded.

Gender "fluidity" is something I struggle with. The only "issue" I have with it is when things like the TFL announcement or mixed sex toilets or teaching about gender fluidity to kids makes the press because, as already mentioned, it feels like an agenda is being pushed. And that goes against my principle of "live and let live".

But you know what? My black and white view of the world says that there are things I understand and things I don't, and I don't worry about either unless I feel they have an affect on my life or that of my family.

25 years in software development here (although the last 5 have been primarily involved in meetings discussing developments); I tend to have a very B&W view of the world (which I presume would be described by some as racist ...) Took me a little time to get used to gender fluidity, but I really don't see a problem in it. One thing that I really do enjoy is that my mum (70 y/o) is quite amazingly open minded in such things, she sets an example which few would follow of her generation.

Spoken/written language is incredibly vague; computer languages on the other hand tend to be clearly defined, even if not well implemented.

[gregs656]

TurboHatchback said:

That's just it though, calling them a woman to me is willfully misunderstanding what is in front of me, calling them a man is correctly understanding what is in front of me. To me it's like being told to refer to an MX5 as a van, a spanner as a garden shovel or a white rastafarian as black, it's simply incorrect.

Well I guess our approach to language is different then. I am a factual, logical sort of person (software engineer by trade) and to me language is not vague and airy fairy but concrete and definite. This whole gender agenda seems entirely pushed by those inclined to the liberal arts and humanities, it speaks or a very different mindset. To me refusing to indulge a delusion is not cruel, quite the opposite in fact as to do so simply reinforces said delusion which is inherently damaging..

If we just decide to reallocate the words male/female and all associated terminology we no longer have any means of representing the concept. Are we to scrap all medical textbooks because it's no longer PC to refer to male and female physiology? Are we to rename all clothing sections to tits/no tits because referring to who they'll actually fit is no longer allowed? Are we to invent new words to represent what we already have perfectly good words for? And like you ask, for what?

If you didn't know the person before they transitioned, how would you know they were their non-presenting sex? What you're saying makes no sense, in exactly the same way that there would be no way of knowing the maiden name of a married woman - and extremely odd to use that name after the marriage. Indeed, say you had an aquantaince who becomes a Dr in their 50s, you've been associated with them for 20 years, would you refuse to use that pronoun, even if they asked you? It would just be incredibly rude.

If language is not airy fairy to you then please come up with the meaning of truth, knowledge, please write down in clearly understood terms what it is to be a human being. These are concepts that have been grappled with for millennia. We all use the words and we all know what we mean but the meaning is extremely context dependant and in some ways personal. Even relatively simple words like 'game' (to steal an example from Wittgenstein) are so expansive as to not be understood by a strict definition.

We clearly do have means of referring to the concept. Medical text books are physiological so male/female is fine. Of course for mental health a better understanding of what it is to be human and the different permutations of how that manifests is no bad thing.

I think we really get down to the brass tacks of your position, which you have been trying to pretty up with this language thing and consistently choosing to misunderstand the situation with regard to sex and gender when you state these people are deluded.

I said earlier that 'It sounds like what you object strongly to is educating your self, and giving people the dignity and respect that you undoubtably crave your self.' - I stand by that.

[ClockworkCupcake]

"Hi, nice to meet you. I'm TurboHatchback. You look a bit blokey to me, so would you mind lifting your dress so I can check your genitalia? Also, I'll need you to submit to a DNA test just in chase you've had surgery. I need to be absolutely sure that you fit within my criteria before I.... oh, hello officer. I was just telling this 'person' that... wait, let me explain..."

[TurboHatchback]

gregs656 said:

consistently choosing to misunderstand the situation with regard to sex and gender

It sounds like what you object strongly to is educating your self

No, it's called disagreeing. My opinion/outlook differs from yours, just like there is a spread of opinion amongst the public at large. I've ended up in and overheard discussions about this subject with quite a few groups of people and there is quite a spread of opinion on the issue with some fairly extreme views at both ends of the spectrum, mine are actually relatively liberal compared to the balance of opinion I have encountered.

I just present and explain a viewpoint for debate and I'm not bothered about being shouted down or insulted by those that cannot accept any opinion that doesn't match their agenda, I don't expect everyone to agree but when nobody questions these things you end up with an internet echo chamber populated by activists vociferously agreeing with each other who are then shocked when they go out in the real world and find out that their views are not representative (like the Corbynistas for example). If they hear some alternative views it might help them to understand where people are coming from.

[ClockworkCupcake]

TurboHatchback said:

No, it's called disagreeing. My opinion/outlook differs from yours, just like there is a spread of opinion amongst the public at large. I've ended up in and overheard discussions about this subject with quite a few groups of people and there is quite a spread of opinion on the issue with some fairly extreme views at both ends of the spectrum, mine are actually relatively liberal compared to the balance of opinion I have encountered.

Wait, there's a spectrum? I though everything was black or white?

[wiggy001]

ClockworkCupcake said:

TurboHatchback said:

No, it's called disagreeing. My opinion/outlook differs from yours, just like there is a spread of opinion amongst the public at large. I've ended up in and overheard discussions about this subject with quite a few groups of people and there is quite a spread of opinion on the issue with some fairly extreme views at both ends of the spectrum, mine are actually relatively liberal compared to the balance of opinion I have encountered.

Wait, there's a spectrum? I though everything was black or white?

[The Surveyor]

wiggy001 said:

ClockworkCupcake said:

TurboHatchback said:

No, it's called disagreeing. My opinion/outlook differs from yours, just like there is a spread of opinion amongst the public at large. I've ended up in and overheard discussions about this subject with quite a few groups of people and there is quite a spread of opinion on the issue with some fairly extreme views at both ends of the spectrum, mine are actually relatively liberal compared to the balance of opinion I have encountered.

Wait, there's a spectrum? I though everything was black or white?

There 'can' be a spectrum of opinion on a topic that has a simple yes / no answer. Will Jeremy Corbyn be the next Prime Minister for example....

[p2c]

TurboHatchback said:

gregs656 said:

consistently choosing to misunderstand the situation with regard to sex and gender

It sounds like what you object strongly to is educating your self

No, it's called disagreeing. My opinion/outlook differs from yours, just like there is a spread of opinion amongst the public at large. I've ended up in and overheard discussions about this subject with quite a few groups of people and there is quite a spread of opinion on the issue with some fairly extreme views at both ends of the spectrum, mine are actually relatively liberal compared to the balance of opinion I have encountered.

I just present and explain a viewpoint for debate and I'm not bothered about being shouted down or insulted by those that cannot accept any opinion that doesn't match their agenda, I don't expect everyone to agree but when nobody questions these things you end up with an internet echo chamber populated by activists vociferously agreeing with each other who are then shocked when they go out in the real world and find out that their views are not representative (like the Corbynistas for example). If they hear some alternative views it might help them to understand where people are coming from.

I think it would be a good idea to read your own post back to yourself and see how it applies to your own situation, particularly the second paragraph and how that may reflect on you. For me there is no agenda or opinion other than being me and true to myself and trying to help people understand what that means. I don't see my existence as an opinion or debate to be had or have I ever met or heard of anyone with a copy of the so called trans agenda.

Edited by p2c on Wednesday 19th July 14:27

[p2c]

saw this one this morning



Transphobe: You cant possibly expect us to treat something as complex as this in a binary fashion, that's just stupid!
Trans person: What about Gender
Transphobe: No there are only two
Trans person: oh

[TurboHatchback]

One of the defintions of agenda: The underlying intentions or motives of a particular person or group.

The intentions and motives of you or 'your group' is to mandate that everyone interact with you in a manner prescribed by yourself, not as they see fit.

Consider the following:

"I am a transspecies person. Whilst I have opposable thumbs, speak fluent english and appear like a human I was in fact mis-specied at birth and I am really a horse. I demand that my passport have a new box added for species and that I be listed as horse, I demand the council provide me with a stable rather than a house, I demand to be treated on the NHS by a qualified vetinarian not a doctor. I must be immune from prosecution for my actions because animals are not capable of criminal liability. I demand to be called dobbin (although my legal name is Steve). I will be insulted and upset when anybody refers to me as 'that man' as I am not a man, I am a horse. Anybody who doesn't refer to me as a horse is uneducated, bigoted and being deliberately hurtful. I will wear nothing but a harness, bit and blinkers when I go out but I demand that nobody looks at me funny or comments on my appearance. For me there is no agenda or opinion other than being me and true to myself and trying to help people understand what that means. I don't see my existence as an opinion or debate to be had or have I ever met or heard of anyone with a copy of the so called transspecies agenda. I cannot comprehend how you can willfully misunderstand what is in front of you (a horse) and insult me by referring to me as a man."

Do I accept this individual and his right to think, act and dress as he wants? Yes. Would I treat him with the same basic respect and courtesy with which I treat all people? Yes. Will I offer him abuse or deliberate insult/harm? No. Do I support him and will I indulge him by referring to him as 'that horse' or be ok with him taking a dump in the middle of the road? No. How would you treat this individual?

Or if that doesn't work for you here's another variation:

"I am a transrace person. Whilst I have ginger hair and skin like copier paper I was misraced at birth and am in fact black. I demand that all documents list my ethnicity as black (despite the photo), I demand that any crime by white people against me be recorded as racially motivated hate crime as I am black, I demand to be referred to as 'my [socially unacceptable term for black person]' (although my legal name is Steve). I will be insulted and upset when anybody refers to me as white as I am black. Anybody who doesn't refer to me as black is uneducated, bigoted and being deliberately hurtful. I will wear full dreadlocks and a pimp suit when I go out but I demand that nobody looks at me funny or comments on my appearance. For me there is no agenda or opinion other than being me and true to myself and trying to help people understand what that means. I don't see my existence as an opinion or debate to be had or have I ever met or heard of anyone with a copy of the so called transrace agenda. I cannot comprehend how you can willfully misunderstand what is in front of you (a black man) and insult me by referring to me as white."

Same result, same question. How would you treat this individual?

[ClockworkCupcake]

Sounds to me like you're the one with an agenda.

Most transpeople just want to get on with our lives with a bit of respect, tolerance, and equality, without having to seek permission from people like you as to what we can and can't be.

[p2c]

TurboHatchback said:

One of the defintions of agenda: The underlying intentions or motives of a particular person or group.

The intentions and motives of you or 'your group' is to mandate that everyone interact with you in a manner prescribed by yourself, not as they see fit.

Consider the following:

"I am a transspecies person. Whilst I have opposable thumbs, speak fluent english and appear like a human I was in fact mis-specied at birth and I am really a horse. I demand that my passport have a new box added for species and that I be listed as horse, I demand the council provide me with a stable rather than a house, I demand to be treated on the NHS by a qualified vetinarian not a doctor. I must be immune from prosecution for my actions because animals are not capable of criminal liability. I demand to be called dobbin (although my legal name is Steve). I will be insulted and upset when anybody refers to me as 'that man' as I am not a man, I am a horse. Anybody who doesn't refer to me as a horse is uneducated, bigoted and being deliberately hurtful. I will wear nothing but a harness, bit and blinkers when I go out but I demand that nobody looks at me funny or comments on my appearance. For me there is no agenda or opinion other than being me and true to myself and trying to help people understand what that means. I don't see my existence as an opinion or debate to be had or have I ever met or heard of anyone with a copy of the so called transspecies agenda. I cannot comprehend how you can willfully misunderstand what is in front of you (a horse) and insult me by referring to me as a man."

Do I accept this individual and his right to think, act and dress as he wants? Yes. Would I treat him with the same basic respect and courtesy with which I treat all people? Yes.Will I offer him abuse or deliberate insult/harm? No . Do I support him and will I indulge him by referring to him as 'that horse' or be ok with him taking a dump in the middle of the road? No. How would you treat this individual?

Or if that doesn't work for you here's another variation:

"I am a transrace person. Whilst I have ginger hair and skin like copier paper I was misraced at birth and am in fact black. I demand that all documents list my ethnicity as black (despite the photo), I demand that any crime by white people against me be recorded as racially motivated hate crime as I am black, I demand to be referred to as 'my [socially unacceptable term for black person]' (although my legal name is Steve). I will be insulted and upset when anybody refers to me as white as I am black. Anybody who doesn't refer to me as black is uneducated, bigoted and being deliberately hurtful. I will wear full dreadlocks and a pimp suit when I go out but I demand that nobody looks at me funny or comments on my appearance. For me there is no agenda or opinion other than being me and true to myself and trying to help people understand what that means. I don't see my existence as an opinion or debate to be had or have I ever met or heard of anyone with a copy of the so called transrace agenda. I cannot comprehend how you can willfully misunderstand what is in front of you (a black man) and insult me by referring to me as white."

Same result, same question. How would you treat this individual?

Not sure which official ID you have that lists your Race. I haven't seen any. you may fill out a demographics form but they are separate to any application or identity and you can put what you like. You can wear what you want do your hair how you like and I wont shout hey white fella or hey black fella across the pub, its just not the right way to address a person.

As for racially motivated hate crime, well it would have to be racially motivated in the first place and that wouldn't matter if your black or white. It would be the same as I can't claim the same thing if the person assaulting me didn't do it because I'm trans. or if I apply for a loan online and get declined it unlikely to be discrimination because they don't know i'm trans. Try and do it in store and they say we don't loan to people like you and it would be!.

As for the bit I highlighted in bold. you don't give trans people those benefits so why give the horse a break?

But horses can't type I'm afraid. The keys are too small for their hoofs, Now trot along back to your stable,

Anyway why am I replying to a horse!

[Sticks.]

'Transphobe'. Hmm, don't like that. Not very tolerant imho.

It implies that anyone in disagreement has an unnatural fear or hatred whereas some people just don't share your/my/our point of view.

Just saying

[p2c]

Ok maybe we should take the horse scenario more seriously as you did say you has opposable thumbs and speak English. So fine by me, pop to your gp and get yourself referred to the equine identity clinic, oh what's that you say there isn't one. Ok so lets apply the gender clinic practices. Step 1 go home and wait 12 to 24 months, maybe 5 years then we may see you. But we wont do anything this is just a get to know you session. Come back in 6 months and my colleague will give a second opinion. In the meantime here is the number for a blacksmith, be sure to be wearing horse shoes next time. If you get through the intense pain of red hot iron on your feet. Its probably like having high power lasers shot in your face 30 mins at a time like trans woman do. Then your off to a good start. Live in the stable for another 2 years and we may fit you a saddle, another 2 years if all your paperwork is in order you may get your ERC and then you can enter the grand national.

If you survive any of that I'll respect you and will put a bet on you in the 4.15 at ascot.

OTOH. Trans people have been studied by the medical profession for a long time, it is a thing, its real its no longer up for debate among those who are educated on it and not wilfully ignorant or influenced by some arcane belief system., people that go through transition go through a worse version than what I described above for horses and they still come out the other side better for it. Everything else they tried killed people.

[p2c]

Sticks. said:

'Transphobe'. Hmm, don't like that. Not very tolerant imho.

It implies that anyone in disagreement has an unnatural fear or hatred whereas some people just don't share your/my/our point of view.

Just saying

Woshhhh parrot for one please.

That's the whole point of the meme, there is no tolerance, its a binary choice there is no in-between as that would make it complicated.

[Sticks.]

p2c said:

Woshhhh parrot for one please.

That's the whole point of the meme, there is no tolerance, its a binary choice there is no in-between as that would make it complicated.

I see, in that case, OK.