"She", not "he", guys

[henry quirk]

"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.

[Ibby]

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.

[BigV]

"She", not "he", guys
If he has a penis, is genetically male, then -- despite *self-definition -- he is 'he'.

Yes?

No?

Opinions?









*that Ibram self-defines as 'girl' is fine by me; that he believes any one else is obligated to address him as a girl (for no other reason than because he wants it that way) is absurd.

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.

[henry quirk]

"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).

[BigV]

Have a nice vacation hq.

[DanaC]

A study has shown that "there was rather a rather extended period of time in the history of the English language when the choice of a supposedly masculine personal pronoun (him) said nothing about the gender or sex of the referent."[1]

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'.

[Stormieweather]

Originally Posted by henry quirk

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?

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.

[Ibby]

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

[Aliantha]

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!

[Clodfobble]

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...

Originally Posted by Ibby

.

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.

[sexobon]

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").

[DanaC]

*chuckles*

[jimhelm]

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.

[infinite monkey]

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

[Ibby]

Originally Posted by jimhelm

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

<--- psst