I have been over harsh. I'm sorry Inf.

falling on deaf ears
 

"...there is a good deal of medical evidence to suggest that gender is less simple that we have previously considered. Quite aside from those people who are born physically male but 'feel' female."

Thing is: as pointed out up-thread, 'feeling' like a girl doesn't alter the fact that he is a boy. Reality trumps self-definition (or feelings of a bleeding heart).

#

"There are all sorts of variations on the theme. Differences in hormonal makeup for instance. Sexuality and sexual orientation are extraordinarily complex psychologically. It is a fundamental part of every person's identity, it is a fundamental part of everybody's psychological and physical development."

Indeed it is complex and Ibram should indulge his notions about his gender as he likes. The universe, however, doesn't care how he views himself. I take my cues from 'it', not him.

#

"The colour of one's skin is pretty much set from birth. The only psycholotgical impact of skin colour is where it places you in the world. Skin colour does not bring with it an ever shifting, ever developing hormonal stew. Skin colour and 'race' do not show any differences in brain structure or function.'

Er, that he has a cock and you a pussy is also pretty much set from birth.

DNA does not lie and it isn't altered by 'hormonal stew'. As posted up-thread, a significant number of folks who identify as transsexual may have been exposed to xenoestregens(sic). This makes, at least for those folks, their 'feeling' a disorder.

Again: not suggesting such folks need fixing...am suggesting such folks -- regardless of how they each go with or against those 'feelings' -- need to stop demanding obvious contradictions (he as she) be embraced by others.

"It is known that longer versions of the androgen receptor gene are associated with less efficient testosterone signalling"

I read this as disorderd.

Why?

Even if the above applies to Ibram: he still has male DNA, 'is' male, is 'he'.

Henry, you are absolutely entitled to your opinion of what that all means in practice, as we all are.

I'm just having a hard time understanding why you had to start a whole thread to discuss someone else's gender. Y'know, you want to tackle this shit when Ibs pulls you up for saying 'he' well that's just fine. Don't like it, but hey, when have either of ever particularly liked the other's point of view? But starting a thread about this was cruel. Unecessarily cruel.

Ibs is strident and a tad precious about it all at times, but one reason for that is the journey she has gone on to arrive at this point. She is also still young. With all the brazen zeal of the young. But the young, and particularly those who have struggled to such a degree with their sense of identity are also fragile.

This thread is cruel. Your views are your views, but this thread is unnecessry and cruel.

"you are absolutely entitled to your opinion"

But, Dana, that's (one of my) point(s): that he is 'he' is not an opinion, it 'is' fact.

He may 'feel' like a she, but he is not a 'she'.

#

"I'm just having a hard time understanding why you had to start a whole thread to discuss someone else's gender."

Strictly speaking this thread is about appropriate use of pronouns.

Gender (Ibram's) is just the specific example of misuse.

#

"...starting a thread about this was cruel. Unecessarily cruel."

Eye of the beholder.

#

"Ibs is strident and a tad precious about it all at times, but one reason for that is the journey she has gone on to arrive at this point. She is also still young. With all the brazen zeal of the young. But the young, and particularly those who have struggled to such a degree with their sense of identity are also fragile."

All possibly true. All irrelevant.

#

"This thread is cruel. Your views are your views, but this thread is unnecessry and cruel."

Again: eye of the beholder.

Your participation (as well as Ibram's) is solely your (and his) responsibility.

If you view this as an exercise in cruelty: then opt out or defend him with fact.

Again: appeals to courtesy are irrelevant.

Yep. I got that.

*shrug*
 

:neutral:

Dana - I agree with you - it was Ibs posting which "sparked" the thought of starting this thread.
Calling me a "cheerleader for IM - Are you high? seriously! Have you not been around the last few YEARS? ferfuxache :headshake
Moving along...
Where we part ways is that it was cruel... unnecessary.. whatever. Why? How?
I think the cellar is a fantastic place and this is EXACTLY what we should be doing. Ibs came out to us all freely. Fine. No we are done with that/him/her/shim/whatever. Lets actually talk, share thoughts, discuss the issue. If not here, where? Again - the OP was:
I'll try and start with something you posted. Again - leave ibs out of it. Lets try to keep it GENERAL, not specific.
One's gender is also. To the rest of your post - Really? One's psyche is not affected by skin color? Oh please share with me how that works. I have zero proof, but my initial reaction is to disagree wholeheartedly.

Perhaps. But because it is not worth it to you does not make them wrong.

#

Just because you consider something "absurd", that does not make it wrong. You can be the author of your own reality; so can Ibram. Your definitions lose potency the farther you extend them from yourself. Especially in this case, when you try to project them onto other who have greater, dare I say, more intimate knowledge of what they're talking about.

"...because it is not worth it to you does not make them wrong"

If you actually read both of those folks' most recent posts in this thread you'll find neither actually says anything. That's why neither is worth responding to (in this thread).

#

"Your definitions lose potency the farther you extend them from yourself."

I see: so this applies to Ibram as well, yes?

If not: why?

Keep in mind: over and over and over I've said I don't care how Ibram self-defines, I simply refuse to participate in that self-definition by calling him 'her'.

#

"...greater, dare I say, more intimate knowledge of what they're talking about."

What 'greater' knowledge?

He feels like she...fine by me...not disputing the depth or veracity of his feelings...am disputing that he actually 'is' she.

I see now. Ya know, it never was about her.

You want some evidence about the fact that Ok, a quick (0.41 seconds) google search on the word "gender" turned up this:

You opened this thread with a ridiculous and nitpicky complaint about pronoun usage. Ok, let's stick with that. You then try to support your position by introducing statements about Ibram's penis. This quick screenshot of the top hits from google about "gender", your main subject, don't mention penis at all. It's not about penis, hq.

All of our interactions that rely on language depend for their success on a shared understanding of the words we use. You've made clear your understanding of some of these words, like gender and penis. Ok. I don't share your narrow view of these words. Lots of other folks have also indicated the difference between your opinion and theirs. That's ok too. As long as we're talking about grammar and language, sure, plenty of room for our conversation.

But you seem to want to have a definitive ... scientific, absolute certainty about the situation. You bring up hypotheses about penises and dna, etc. I'd like to question your methods here. If they're sound, perhaps they'll stand up. What, exactly, do you know about Ibram's penis? What are your sources. You challenge others for cites of their propositions, I challenge you. And if the discussion is really about Ibram, penis bearer, why are you so wrapped around the axle about pronouns? I just don't see your evidence supporting your claim that "penis equals he". Let's see your cites.

Lotta black and white thinking here, without any room for gray.

It's either/or, can never change or adapt or mutate or be "different"...

Hmmph. I disagree.

Hermaphrodites are both he and she. Are they just nothing then?

Some of what many of you seem to be saying is that we know everything there is to know about gene biology, that once we are born, our genes are set and clearly defined as a simple XX or XY.

And that is simply not the case.

My point is, there is a lot more to gender than just what is between our legs. And I see no reason anyone has to be confined to such simplistic labels as he or she just because humankind has a great deal to learn about genomics.

Genomics

Dana's right, not very many here would purposely start a thread meant to blindside another poster's current struggle.

I dont mind calling Ibram a her, although I probably will stumble a lot and use him by mistake. The science of it doesnt really play into it, either.

I did read them. They do actually say things. Your implication that I hadn't read them makes your argument baseless. Addtionally, I agree with each of them. I agree with Ali's assessment of bullshit, and I think John's on target by asserting that you're messed up in the head as evidenced by his quote of yours. It is conceivable that you haven't read their posts. *shrug*


As for self definition. Sure. Sure it applies to Ibram as well. And if s/he defines as "she", she knows better than you. That greater knowledge is a more reliable source than what I can detect from here. YOU may have greater knowledge about Ibram's gender than I do, perhaps even equal to Ibram's... I doubt it, but if you do, I'd appreciate you sharing your greater ... credentials so I can adjust my understanding accordingly. If you don't, tha's ok, but I'll keep deferring to Ibram on this score until then.

The greater knowledge I spoke of is that Ibram knows Ibram better than you know Ibram. I doubt you dispute this.

responding in reverse
 

"I agree with Ali's assessment of bullshit"

As you like. Again: she says nothing (*of value).

#

"I think John's on target"

See above.

#

"The greater knowledge I spoke of is that Ibram knows Ibram better than you know Ibram."

Yes, agreed...and -- AGAIN -- he can and should self-define as 'she' if that's what he likes. But: I'm obligated to 'what' exactly because of his self-definition?

##

"Hermaphrodites are both he and she. Are they just nothing then?"

Biologically disordered folks who can self-define as each cares to.

Mostly just folks who are different in some fashion. The difference obligates me 'what'?

#

"...once we are born, our genes are set and clearly defined as a simple XX or XY."

In the baseline that's it exactly. Divergence from the baseline is just that, 'divergence', not a re-defining of the baseline.

##

"*..."gender", your main subject..."

#

"But you seem to want to have a definitive ... scientific, absolute certainty about the situation."

I have certainty: Ibram is 'he', not 'she'.

His 'feeling' and self-definition (of she-ness, as she) is another matter irrelevant to the thread (despite great effort to conflate the two) except as it motivates him to claim he is 'she'.

#

"What, exactly, do you know about Ibram's penis? What are your sources.

In this forum: he announces his transgender status, moving, in his estimation, from 'he' to 'she'.

Typically: men have cocks.

Also: Ibram has never disputed any mention of his cock.

While not absolute proof of anything, the evidence is strong that Ibram has a cock.

#

I just don't see your evidence supporting your claim that "penis equals he".

Define: 'he' (as it pertains to a human individual).

Define: 'she' (as it pertains to a human individual).

Do this and you’ll have your evidence.









*if I'm guilty of anything in this thread (its later part), it is -- in haste -- not being as precise as I'd normally would be.

In the case of John and Ali: certainly both posted 'something'...what was posted, in my view, has real no value in moving the debate forward...she asserts 'bullshit"; he says I'm messed up in the head...not of value, in my view.

In the case of gender: I allowed folks to muddy the water by conflating 'gender' with my opening.

In the above areas, the confusion is my fault...apologies.

Henry, your definition of "gender" is wrong. you are incorrectly conflating "genetic sex", "physical sex", and "gender" - all three of which are vaguely related, but are still entirely separate.
The truth is that gender has been defined so many different ways by so many different cultures that you have NO grounds on which to claim "objectivity", "fact", or "science" behind your extremely narrow definition of it. And pronouns, any linguist can tell you, are used according to genders.
You have only your own narrow definition of gender to back your bigotry, and no possible way to "legitimately" defend that definition on any sort of factual, objective level.
you're stuck trying to defend your indefensibility by ignoring everything that contradicts your bigotry, and you know it.

Fine. Back to your opening post.

Hes are hes. Shes are shes.

Ibram's belief (whatever that may be) is absurd.

hq's belief (whatever that may be) is absurd. I cite your own logic surrounding Ali's and John's posts.

Your argument is unsound, as you are not obligated to do anything. Your opening post is a great big setup. You say it was hasty, sloppy. Ok.

I will agree that for human individuals, it is common to refer to those who have a penis as "he". I do not agree with your extensions of that line of reasoning, especially when it comes to defining gender. Nor do I agree with extensions of that line of reasoning that the usage of "he" implies having a penis.

What is this thread about hq? Is it about Ibram's penis? Is it about pronouns? Is it about feeling obligated? Is it about the frission of gender/language/anatomy? Are you seeking to learn something? Or are you seeking to state something? Are you striving to persuade others or are you trying to clarify your own understanding? Something else?

Do you give a shit what Ibram, or many others here say in their posts? Why are you bothering? What the hell is your point, man?

And by "man", I mean... "label written 'henry quirk' which is associated with posts on this forum". ffs.

LAST POST FOR THE DAY...BACK THURSDAY...
 

"Henry, your definition of "gender" is wrong. you are incorrectly conflating "genetic sex", "physical sex", and "gender" - all three of which are vaguely related, but are still entirely separate."

Actually: no.

Read my OP...I mention 'gender' not once.

You introduced the term.

Again: my mistake was allowing you and others to conflate my *OP with gender.

*'If he has a penis, is genetically male, then -- despite self-definition -- he is 'he'.'

#

"And pronouns, any linguist can tell you, are used according to genders."

Then, for my clarification...

Define: 'he' (as it pertains to a human individual).

Define: 'she' (as it pertains to a human individual).

Have a nice vacation hq.

:)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/He#cite_note-0


The word 'man' used to mean either gender, or could be used to refer to a male. A female would often be referred to (for example in early Anglo-saxon legal documents) as a 'man'. If it was necessary specifically to differentiate and make a point of the woman's gender they would be referred to as a 'wyfman'.

You aren't obligated to...anything.

You choose to define gender (or Ibram's gender, specifically) however you wish and label accordingly.

You choose not to honor her request to use the female pronoun and that's entirely up to you.

No skin off my nose any more so than calling Ibram or another gender self-defined individual the pronoun of their choice. You may offend her, but again, that is your choice to do so.

...it just makes you a cunt is all.

Originally, I personally did not see this thread as an attack on Ib, and in all honesty I still don't.

What I do see wrong with it is the fact that Henry has posted it in a 'philosophy' forum, but he's looking for some kind of scientific justification for why he should be forced to do or say something which he clearly has no intention of doing, even in order to support a member of a community which he frequents, regardless of whether there is a cost to himself or not.

He claims some moral high ground about 'lying' to himself if he addresses a transgender person by their preferred pronoun, but to date has failed to explain how there can possibly be any cost to himself outside of cracking through the barriers of understanding to extend a little courtesy.

I say to you, if someone is introduced to you as Mr Schiznit, and then says, 'yeah, but you can call me Al'. would it be at some high moral cost to you to call that person Al instead of Mr Schiznit? Seriously, even if for some reason you held that person in high regard and felt comfortable calling them 'Mr', we can all get used to addressing people by their preferred name. Maybe Mr Schiznit really hates his surname and by addressing him as such, even if it feels right to you, it really sux for him, and you're not doing yourself any favours by continuing to do so, particularly if Mr Schiznit happens to be your boss or some other authority figure. In fact, not following Mr Schiznit's wishes may in fact end up being 'at great personal expense' to you!

I have a quick and easy solution.

Just refer to henry as "she." We can't be any more certain of her genitalia as anyone else's here, and since her personal self-identification doesn't matter, only whether we are being true to ourselves...

Nice call. Reminds me of another girl I knew in elementary school, named Libby. Her real name was Elizabeth, and there was also another Elizabeth in the class, but she went by Bess. Our originally-foreign teacher thought both these nicknames were just absurd.

Perhaps we'll have to resort to using hyphenated pronouns in which the first part recognizes self identification (in deference to the individual) and the second part recognizes genetic makeup to prevent deceptions. We could have him-her, her-him, his-hers, hers-his, he-she, she-he and those with physical traits of both sexes (by birth; or, medical intervention) could optionally use him&her, her&him, his&hers, hers&his, he&she, and she&he.

Of course, everyone would reserve the right to refer to someone they simply didn't like as she-he-it (pronounced "shit").

*chuckles*

The only problem I have is that I've know Ibram as he for too long. So... I see Ibram as a male name.

Ib,
if being referred to as a she is really important, you might consider changing to a feminine login name.

...that said, I still call infinite monkey shaw, and pete's a taco dar. so no guarantees I'll get it right every time.

I don't mind when you call me shaw. In fact, I rather like it. :)

<--- psst ;)

aw, d00d. i didnt even notice that.

Ibby is still derivative of Ibram.

shit... d00dette.



but I call Ripley Ippy. hmmm... I'll try.

It's pronounced "Os Wee Pay"

Call people what you want. If you want them to respect you and respond to you in a pleasant and articulate way, you might want to refer to them in the way they prefer, no? QED as far as I can see. Me, I'm done with histrionic allegedly-young-adult attention whores who resort to name calling on a far too regular basis (;) for the slooooow...), and their cheerleading squad. The rest, I think, have valid points on both side of the argument, and have presented them fairly eloquently. I particularly liked Infi's black comparison, it may not be 100% allegoriacal -who knows- but it was thoughtful and well presented imho.

I didn't say it had no effect on the pysche, but that any effect is entirely cultural.

There are many places in the world where people go their whole lives not seeing people of a different colour. In such a place a child is unlikely to consider their skin colour in any deeper terms than the shape of their foot, the colour of their hair, or the length of their fingers. It is simply a physical feature. They'd be aware of it. But not as an important issue of identity. Race likewise only becomes an important coponent of identity when set against other races. Unless one is raised in a place where races mix or are in tension, it need never be something consciously thought about during childhood.

There is nothing inherent about skin colour or 'race' to affect the development of a child. However, ALL children go through psycho-sexual development as they grow. beginning (if I remember my child psych correctly) around the age of three.

Psycho-sexual development is fundamental to the human experience, it is a fundamental process which all healthy humans go through. The way that manifests and what it means differs from one to another culture, but the fact of it's happening is universal.

Skin colour, literally is skin deep. There are no differences in brain structure, or in brain chemistry relating to skin colour.

Psycho-sexual identities appear to have correlating brain structrures and brain chemistry. Whilst the differences between 'male' and 'female' brains are minor, they are measurable. Work in his field continues to show that such measurable differences also exist between the brains of straight, gay and bisexual people. Similarly it seems from the work being done in this field that measurable differences exist between the brains of people with expected gender identities and people with trans gender identities.

It is really not the same thing as waking up one morning and thinking one is black when one is in fact white.



[eta] further to that: you could lock a child in a room from the age of 2 with no human company beyond the presentation of meals and the taking away of waste, and whilst they will probably be unable to get to grips woth language or social interaction, they will still have been through psycho-sexual development. The results would be warped, and confused, but the process would still have occurred.

Y'know, I was thinking about this thread when I went to bed last night. And it struck me that in fact it is academic. Because, unless my memory is more fucked up than I realise, Ibs never said she was a girl trapped in a boy's body. What Ibs actually said was that the CIS Male identity simply doesn't fit. A female identity also doesn't entirely fit. Ibs didn't want us to call her a 'she' at first. her preferred pronoun was in fact 'they'.

Most of us, myself included, balked at the idea of using 'they' and 'their' when referring to a named individual because it jars grammatically. 'She' and 'her' was the compromise position. Neither 'he' nor 'she' is entirely accurate, but of the two, 'she' is closest.

I may be misremembering this, but that's how I read it. Ibs is exploring her femininity, not claiming to be female.

I missed Infi's black comparison, did it involve pots and kettles?

No one said they were the same, but there are similarities and I believe the analogy warranted discussion.
For example - lets take your above scenario and introduce a person of a different color into that place.
Now what happens? How do you think that would impact/affect both "sides"?

yes&no. in actuality I reject the notion of binary gender entirely, and i am who i am. when you put the broken sexist blinders back on and "see gender" again, after that, i fall very much on the feminine side. Since I don't pass very well, and since it quite triggers my dysphoria on the matter to be reminded of that by constantly being called "sir" or "him", I'm pushing towards the other extreme stylistically until it no longer happens, until I "pass", for my own sake. I agree with Kate Bornstein that it's entirely possible to live a non-gendered life, when the haters and the bigots and the willfully ignorant get out of the way. but that isn't where I am right now. Right now I ask to be treated as a woman, with pronouns to match. some people just aren't very good at respect and decency is all. and some are just bigots.

yeah. Ok I get that. The rejection of polarised gender was what i was trying to get at but failing :p

You missed the LARGEST group - those of us who aren't used to referring to you as a she when we've basically been condition over years to refer to you as a he.

Many of us, I assume, mean no disrespect to you and do not fall into any of those groups you've defined.

As I said before, i completely respect that it's hard to get used to. I'm sure it's going to take my parents years to get to that point.
there's a big difference between making a pronoun mistake and willfully deciding not to even try and get it right.
Henry is clearly the latter. IM appears to be going down that path in this thread and others.
other people are hit and miss. i dont hold it against someone if they get it wrong occasionally, but when they get it consistently wrong, even after a polite correction, it's another matter.
I'm not going around assuming that every "he" i get comes from a place of malice. its the ones that DO come from that place i have a problem with.

So, if I disagree with you about something and I say "That Ibby, she's just a dumb cuntless.", we're cool right?

sounds good to me!

"it just makes you a cunt is all"
 

This is your opinion, one which may or may not have a basis in fact.

What follows, however, is indisputably FACT...

You are XY (male), not XX (female).

Appeals to shifty cultural definitions or 'courtesy' cannot change this fact.

You are 'he'.

XY imparts certain characteristics to the flesh (as a whole). You possess these characteristics because you are XY (male, 'he'). How you choose to accentuate or diminish those characteristics is up to you. Your reasons or reasoning for accentuating or diminishing these characteristics is yours to suss out and is wholly irrelevant to me (or this thread). The source of those characteristics, however, remains the same (regardless of 'where' or 'when' you happen to be, or, what you want, or perceive yourself, to be).

You may submit to surgery and injections to alter your flesh so you appear female, but -- till you re-code your DNA -- you're 'he'.



Again: self-define as you like, and any who interact with you should feel free to call you 'she'. For myself, however, I choose to call you 'he'.

In my view: you're disturbed, disordered, and I'll not contribute to your delusion. I don't oppose you, but I won't stand with you.

'nuff said.

Someone needs a cunt punt.

From a purely technical stand, I think Henry is correct.

Thankfully that is not the ONLY definition available.

Even from a purely technical stand, I think Henry is at best partially correct. There's plenty of evidence to suggest a genetic component to gender and sexuality, as well as a chromosomal component to gender dysmorphia.

And I still don't understand wtf he cares enough to start a whole thread about it, and when it becomes apparent that his opinion is causing offence and hurt he wouldn't just step away and leave the kid to be who she wants to be without being a total twat about it.

Whether his argument is technically valid or not (I happen to think not) he isn't arguing in a vacuum. He's talking about a real person here, with feelings that can be hurt.

You mentioned earlier Classic that this was a good opportunity to discuss and learn. Had this thread come from a kind place then I'd agree. But it manifestly comes from an unkind place.

He's a fucking bully. He's couching it in unemotional, logical argument but the whole purpose of this thread imo was to cause hurt to Ibby. The timing of it alone suggests that. It was in response to an argument in another thread where henry and others felt Ibbs wasn't practising what she preached about tolerance, with Klyde. This thread was started in the context of teaching Ibs a lesson and making her uncomfortable.

Bullying fuck.

I thought we covered all that already.
We were drifting away and turning THAT shit-storm into a positive open discussion.
thanks for dragging it back up & stirring the shit again.

Right because Henry's last submission wasn't attacking Ibby at an identity level.

I got angry all over again.

I never thought I'd miss MaggieL...

The medical treatment for gender identity disorder is "harm reduction" which means hormone therapy and sex reassignment.

So: either it's physiological, or it's so deeply embedded in the psychology, that trying to "fix it" by insisting on coaxing away a "delusion" is more harmful to the subject.

Medicine appears to not agree with you Henry.

Also, time has shown me that pretty much all humans are disturbed and disordered. Only some of them can't help but show it. The only human not disturbed and disordered is glatt. Doctors are examining him to try to figure out how he became a highly grounded and normal individual.

It's funny because it's true.

And Ibs post before that wasn't attacking Henry? :right:

They are both adults and can handle themselves. Let them work it out.
Sooner or later one will rise above and stop. (hopefully)

That depends on how you define 'attack' and whether that definition also includes responding to another's attack.

It's also on a very different level. Calling someone names and swearing at them is a very different thing to calling into question their whole sense of self.

Let's face it, it isn't exactly an uncommon feature of bullying to provoke the subject of it into retaliation and then let everybody blame them for 'attacking' or starting trouble.
[/quote]

I sort of agree. But one is significantly younger than the other and has openly spoken of struggling with body dysmorphia. This kind of shit is not helpful. And yes, Ibbs walks into it sometimes. But I remember 21. For all the strident, self-righteous certainty I expressed and indeed felt, at another level I was only just an adult and self-certainty was new and fragile.

Ibbs can absolutely handle herself. But that doesn't mean there isn't damage dealt along the way. And no amount of insults to Henry can offer the same potential for hurt and harm as his denial of Ibb's sense of self might.

Ok. You're right though. I am not making things better. And we are going round in circles anyway.

I just got back from being away for a few days, and was slogging my way through this long thread, following the ebbs and flows of it and really got a chuckle out of this last bit.

BS - Who struck first? Its tit for tat now and will never end. AND you are helping.

and another tangent ... Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

And you think you are helping? Not from here you aren't. The thread was heading into another direction of open discussion NOT on them.
And you keep bringing it back. Lemme put it this way - stop helping.

Then STFU and lets ALL move on.

Agreed - I probably should have read this part before responding... oh well.
:p

Who struck first? I'd say the person who started a thread about gender identity aimed specifically at an individual with gender issues.

And now....I'll stfu and move on.

good.