Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Ketara wrote:

Please go and do some reading on this. You're currently the crazy guy in the corner insisting the earth is flat. By any rational standard, calculation, or understanding, sex and gender are completely different things.

It could also be that most people just don't give a single damn about what others call themselves or not. Or don't even see the smallest merit in engaging in another discussion that leads nowhere. Not that this happened on Dakka before. Nah.

Sex and gender are different. The former is a natural term, the latter is a construct. You are a man / woman (sex) but you can identify as a man / woman even if not being a man / woman. You can choose to identify as whatever you want, be it man, woman, something in between, an airplane, a box, a cat, a wolf, a black despite being white etc. You can choose to do so because it's your choice and it's your personal freedom. The problem is that there's an extremely loud group of extremists who defy all common sense and expect everyone else to identify them as what they identify themselves - and that isn't how social life works. That's how forcing your opinion down other people's throat works. How it actually works is that you (kindly) ask others to idenfity you as you want to be identified, acknowledging that they may turn that favor down if they don't want to. It's that simple. It's how socializing /works/. Being a loud person asking everyone to do everything to satisfy you and doing anything you ask for or else calling in your tumblr army is just slowed and highly inappropriate.

What really makes me physically disgusted and angry is people seriously considering Bruce Jenner to be braver than soldiers who actually went to war. In reference to the wise Louis CK: what a waste of oxygen.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

Please go and do some reading on this. You're currently the crazy guy in the corner insisting the earth is flat. By any rational standard, calculation, or understanding, sex and gender are completely different things.

It could also be that most people just don't give a single damn about what others call themselves or not. Or don't even see the smallest merit in engaging in another discussion that leads nowhere. Not that this happened on Dakka before. Nah.

Sex and gender are different. The former is a natural term, the latter is a construct. You are a man / woman (sex) but you can identify as a man / woman even if not being a man / woman. You can choose to identify as whatever you want, be it man, woman, something in between, an airplane, a box, a cat, a wolf, a black despite being white etc. You can choose to do so because it's your choice and it's your personal freedom. The problem is that there's an extremely loud group of extremists who defy all common sense and expect everyone else to identify them as what they identify themselves - and that isn't how social life works. That's how forcing your opinion down other people's throat works. How it actually works is that you (kindly) ask others to idenfity you as you want to be identified, acknowledging that they may turn that favor down if they don't want to. It's that simple. It's how socializing /works/. Being a loud person asking everyone to do everything to satisfy you and doing anything you ask for or else calling in your tumblr army is just slowed and highly inappropriate.

What really makes me physically disgusted and angry is people seriously considering Bruce Jenner to be braver than soldiers who actually went to war. In reference to the wise Louis CK: what a waste of oxygen.

I think 'extremists' there is something of a loaded term, but what the hey.

Thing is, there are plenty of speech actions that are controlled by fairly extreme social pressures (and the government in countries other than the US), like racist utterances. The thing that trans interests and opposed groups differ on is whether the use of chosen pronouns/ names/ not being obsessed with what is on somebody's birth certificate is just how nasty these utterances are. Society on the whole is starting to come around to the trans perspective on this, so I think we're going to see the sex=pronouns lot go the way of white people who insist on using the n-word. I mean, sure, they might be able to get away with it, but the rest of society is going to think that they're a bit of an unsavoury character.

And I get angry that people insist on believing that the only form of bravery is shooting people. Sure, its brave going to war, but I also believe that Caitlyn's coming out in the face of a minority of individuals who are very vocally disbelieving and often insulting can also reasonably be termed 'brave'.

 Sigvatr wrote:

The problem is that there's an extremely loud group of extremists who defy all common sense and expect everyone else to identify them as what they identify themselves - and that isn't how social life works. That's how forcing your opinion down other people's throat works. How it actually works is that you (kindly) ask others to idenfity you as you want to be identified, acknowledging that they may turn that favor down if they don't want to.

Errr.....not really. Otherwise a lot of people would be entitled to identify other people as 'sub-human' for various unsavoury motivations. In polite society, the done thing generally is to allow others to get on with things as best suits them, and identify them however they wish to be identified. They have no obligation to tug their forelocks, accept things and say, 'As you will, M'lud' when someone laughs and says, 'Jenkins my dear boy, there's no way you're a woman'.

If someone chooses to be a woman, man, or anything else in between, and somebody insist on calling them something different, it's disrespectful to them, and more symptomatic of bad manners and poor taste on that persons part. A person can choose to do those things if they wish, but then they can expect to be shunned by the rest of society who don't suffer from such a neglectful and pitiable upbringing. THAT, my friend, is how socializing works.

 Ketara wrote:


If someone chooses to be a woman, man, or anything else in between, and somebody insist on calling them something different, it's disrespectful to them, and more symptomatic of bad manners and poor taste on that persons part.

It works in the exact same way the other way around. If someone simply has a very conservative opinion / mindset and doesn't believe in the sex-gender distinction, then you have to accept that. Period. It's his respective opinion and as long as he doesn't go out on an orange box yelling at others and violating laws, his opinion is exactly equal to the other side's opinion. Just because one side is more appreciated doesn't make it more legit. Giving such people names and calling them bigots is on the same level as calling people identifying differently names. Calling a man who identifies as a woman a man is disrespectful towards them, sure. That's not in question. Calling others bigots because they do so is the very same thing. You insult people because of their mindset. That's the problem.

It's like those extremist vegans who'd shame normal people eating meat. It's an opinion. It's a choice you made, not the people around you did.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Ketara wrote:


If someone chooses to be a woman, man, or anything else in between, and somebody insist on calling them something different, it's disrespectful to them, and more symptomatic of bad manners and poor taste on that persons part.

It works in the exact same way the other way around. If someone simply has a very conservative opinion / mindset and doesn't believe in the sex-gender distinction, then you have to accept that. Period. It's his respective opinion and as long as he doesn't go out on an orange box yelling at others and violating laws, his opinion is exactly equal to the other side's opinion. Just because one side is more appreciated doesn't make it more legit. Giving such people names and calling them bigots is on the same level as calling people identifying differently names.

It's like those extremist vegans who'd shame norman people eating meat. It's an opinion. It's a choice you made, not the people around you did.

I'm not sure it does work the same way the other way around. We're happy calling racists 'racists'. One does not have to accept another's opinion, but may attempt to change it by providing counter arguments and examples. The bit where people get called bigots is one of the stronger factors in engineering the change in social constructs that the OP was talking about - social ostracisation is a pretty strong behavioural modifier.

The vegan thing is not a working comparison - veganism (except in cases of allergy) is an obvious choice, whereas gender is not believed to be by most people, most theorists, my government or yours.

The only real cases where I have seen someone change gender 'out of choice' is because they are in fact

1. Genderfluid
2. Still trying to figure out which gender they belong to, if any (so it's a matter of understanding yourself rather than something like choosing your favourite car).

Contrary to popular belief, this is not a decision made on a whim. It is a key part of your self-image and how you are viewed by those around you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sigvatr wrote:
You can choose to identify as whatever you want, be it man, woman, something in between, an airplane, a box, a cat, a wolf, a black despite being white etc. You can choose to do so because it's your choice and it's your personal freedom. The problem is that there's an extremely loud group of extremists who defy all common sense and expect everyone else to identify them as what they identify themselves - and that isn't how social life works. That's how forcing your opinion down other people's throat works. How it actually works is that you (kindly) ask others to idenfity you as you want to be identified, acknowledging that they may turn that favor down if they don't want to.

Fortunately, most people are polite, compassionate and generally nice enough to actually refer to people as the correct gender.

From what I can see, misgendering is widely considered a TFG flag, and rightly so.

 Sigvatr wrote:


It works in the exact same way the other way around. If someone simply has a very conservative opinion / mindset and doesn't believe in the sex-gender distinction, then you have to accept that. Period. It's his respective opinion and as long as he doesn't go out on an orange box yelling at others and violating laws, his opinion is exactly equal to the other side's opinion.

Sure. He can do whatever he wants, in the privacy of his own home, in the same way people are free to have swastika tattoos and throw darts at pictures of black people.

Just because one side is more appreciated doesn't make it more legit. Giving such people names and calling them bigots is on the same level as calling people identifying differently names.

You are correct. This does not mean you are right. Objectively speaking, no moral stance is better than another. Objectively speaking, I also cannot be sure anyone or anything else exists. Meanwhile, back in the realm of empirical reason, we all accept that there's a more objective version of morality defined by society as a collective whole (as opposed to the purely subjective by the individual) which we measure, and are measured against. If people are bigots by the standards of that morality, than they are bigots.

Calling a man who identifies as a woman a man is disrespectful towards them, sure. That's not in question. Calling others bigots because they do so is the very same thing. You insult people because of their mindset. That's the problem.

No, I'm saying that people who are disrespectful are people who are disrespectful. If those disrespectful people insist on addressing others in a way that they have been specifically and politely asked not to address someone, then they are rude and ill-bred. If you investigate into why that is, one will possibly find that they reason they insist on behaving that way is due to a bigoted world view. It might also be for other reasons. 'Bigot' is not an insult however, it is merely a phrase with a specific definition.

Bigot is not the correct word to use anyway.

a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions.

Intolerant:

showing willingness to allow the existence of opinions or behaviour that one does not necessarily agree with.

Calling someone by their sex is not intolerant. Doing so is not restricting or removing another opinion or person with a differing opinion. Intolerant would be like the teacher refusing to allow people to wear blue at school or refusing to let kids have nick names. It's not intolerant for the teacher to say he is against nick names and not call kids by nick names.

Unless there is some new meaning for these terms...

I call you Bob. You correct me and tell me your name is Bill. I tell you "well, you look like a Bob, so I don't care what your name is, I will call you Bob".

That would make me a jackass.

It's not rocket science.

 Swastakowey wrote:
Bigot is not the correct word to use anyway.

a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions.

Intolerant:

showing willingness to allow the existence of opinions or behaviour that one does not necessarily agree with.

Calling someone by their sex is not intolerant. Doing so is not restricting or removing another opinion or person with a differing opinion. Intolerant would be like the teacher refusing to allow people to wear blue at school or refusing to let kids have nick names. It's not intolerant for the teacher to say he is against nick names and not call kids by nick names.

Unless there is some new meaning for these terms...

Bigot is incorrect in this case by strict definition, but the common usage of the word differs somewhat from its definition.

However, as has already been mentioned, other monikers such as 'unsavoury individual', 'rude' and 'inconsiderate twonk' might also be used.

 Swastakowey wrote:
Bigot is not the correct word to use anyway.

a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions.

Intolerant:

showing willingness to allow the existence of opinions or behaviour that one does not necessarily agree with.

Calling someone by their sex is not intolerant. Doing so is not restricting or removing another opinion or person with a differing opinion. Intolerant would be like the teacher refusing to allow people to wear blue at school or refusing to let kids have nick names. It's not intolerant for the teacher to say he is against nick names and not call kids by nick names.

Unless there is some new meaning for these terms...

Intolerance would be something like a situation I've very recently come across at my university.... There's a person that I'm on a "friendly acquaintance" basis with. During a conversation I said, "she was talking about blah blah blah"... to which "she" responded with, "I identify as male"


Intolerance on my part would be to continue to address this person as "she". Instead, I've taken it to my head that, as I rather enjoy conversations with him, that I will remember to use "masculine" descriptors when referring to this person. Really, for me, it's not much of a stretch because of the location and manner in which I grew up, nearly everyone is potentially "dude" if I don't refer to the person as Bob, Joe, Jill, Sarah or whatever "proper" name that person has.

There is absolutely nothing for me to gain or lose by NOT referring to a person in the manner in which they wish to be addressed. I mean, obviously I would draw a line somewhere if a person said, "I prefer to be called your Royal Highness" or "I prefer to be called Jesus, Son of God Returned to this Earth, peace be upon my father"

 d-usa wrote:
I call you Bob. You correct me and tell me your name is Bill. I tell you "well, you look like a Bob, so I don't care what your name is, I will call you Bob".

That would make me a jackass.

It's not rocket science.

A name for 100% of people is different person to person. You have to learn someones name. Gender to 99% of people in this world is based entirely on sex with the exception of a few disorders etc.

It's very easy to understand why most people will refer to you as your sex.

If you think the person is a jackass, well that's just as fine as them thinking that a female is a women. is either opinion bigoted? No not really. All I was saying is at the very least find the correct words to be using. Dictionaries are all over the internet.

 Swastakowey wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I call you Bob. You correct me and tell me your name is Bill. I tell you "well, you look like a Bob, so I don't care what your name is, I will call you Bob".

That would make me a jackass.

It's not rocket science.

A name for 100% of people is different person to person. You have to learn someones name. Gender to 99% of people in this world is based entirely on sex with the exception of a few disorders etc.

It's very easy to understand why most people will refer to you as your sex.

If you think the person is a jackass, well that's just as fine as them thinking that a female is a women. is either opinion bigoted? No not really. All I was saying is at the very least find the correct words to be using. Dictionaries are all over the internet.

What I took from d-usa's post, was illustrated in my post... What I got out of his post was that if someone says, "I am X'" and you insist on continuing to call them Y, even if they correct you 3 or 4 times or whatever, then yeah, that makes "you" a jackass.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I call you Bob. You correct me and tell me your name is Bill. I tell you "well, you look like a Bob, so I don't care what your name is, I will call you Bob".

That would make me a jackass.

It's not rocket science.

A name for 100% of people is different person to person. You have to learn someones name. Gender to 99% of people in this world is based entirely on sex with the exception of a few disorders etc.

It's very easy to understand why most people will refer to you as your sex.

If you think the person is a jackass, well that's just as fine as them thinking that a female is a women. is either opinion bigoted? No not really. All I was saying is at the very least find the correct words to be using. Dictionaries are all over the internet.

What I took from d-usa's post, was illustrated in my post... What I got out of his post was that if someone says, "I am X'" and you insist on continuing to call them Y, even if they correct you 3 or 4 times or whatever, then yeah, that makes "you" a jackass.

Yes but not a bigot or intolerant. That is unless you have made up your own meaning for things. That is all I was trying to say.

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I call you Bob. You correct me and tell me your name is Bill. I tell you "well, you look like a Bob, so I don't care what your name is, I will call you Bob".

That would make me a jackass.

It's not rocket science.

A name for 100% of people is different person to person. You have to learn someones name. Gender to 99% of people in this world is based entirely on sex with the exception of a few disorders etc.

It's very easy to understand why most people will refer to you as your sex.

If you think the person is a jackass, well that's just as fine as them thinking that a female is a women. is either opinion bigoted? No not really. All I was saying is at the very least find the correct words to be using. Dictionaries are all over the internet.

What I took from d-usa's post, was illustrated in my post... What I got out of his post was that if someone says, "I am X'" and you insist on continuing to call them Y, even if they correct you 3 or 4 times or whatever, then yeah, that makes "you" a jackass.

Yes but not a bigot or intolerant. That is unless you have made up your own meaning for things. That is all I was trying to say.

It is, however, a very good indicator of intolerance. Most people who continue to call them Y, after being corrected repeatedly, are doing so purposely. Usually because they are intolerant. Not always, they could just be an ass, but usually.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I call you Bob. You correct me and tell me your name is Bill. I tell you "well, you look like a Bob, so I don't care what your name is, I will call you Bob".

That would make me a jackass.

It's not rocket science.

A name for 100% of people is different person to person. You have to learn someones name. Gender to 99% of people in this world is based entirely on sex with the exception of a few disorders etc.

It's very easy to understand why most people will refer to you as your sex.

If you think the person is a jackass, well that's just as fine as them thinking that a female is a women. is either opinion bigoted? No not really. All I was saying is at the very least find the correct words to be using. Dictionaries are all over the internet.

What I took from d-usa's post, was illustrated in my post... What I got out of his post was that if someone says, "I am X'" and you insist on continuing to call them Y, even if they correct you 3 or 4 times or whatever, then yeah, that makes "you" a jackass.

Yes but not a bigot or intolerant. That is unless you have made up your own meaning for things. That is all I was trying to say.

It is, however, a very good indicator of intolerance. Most people who continue to call them Y, after being corrected repeatedly, are doing so purposely. Usually because they are intolerant.

Isn't that stereotyping? I suspect you also say black skin is an indicator of a criminal too.

Again, I understand the intent, but the words being used here to shame the opposition are the wrong words. You can call someone by their sex because of your views on gender while acknowledging their views on gender are different. Again intolerance is an unwillingness to accept views, beliefs, or behaviour that differ from one's own. Not calling someone by their chosen pronouns is not intolerant. It is exactly the same as insisting people call you by your chosen pronouns.

 Swastakowey wrote:



Isn't that stereotyping? I suspect you also say black skin is an indicator of a criminal too.

Again, I understand the intent, but the words being used here to shame the opposition are the wrong words.

Not really. It's based on actions, not existence. Someone actively treating a minority group who are often discriminated against negatively? Probably intolerant. Again, not all are, some are just inconsiderate donkey-caves with nothing better to do than be cruel, but most are.

And very weird accusation of racism there, badly worded perhaps.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
But are we talking about sex as in terms of sexuality (what you prefer to romantically inclined with) or biological sex?

Biological sex. Who (or what) a person is attracted to sexually is an entirely different and unrelated subject.

Danka Schon.

As I have no expertise in Biological Sex, nor any ideas or thoughts to share. I shall defer to my textbook and say "No." You are defined by your biology, not you. You can identify as it. But technically specially biologically you are that gender. But legally you are what you identify as.

Isn't that stereotyping? I suspect you also say black skin is an indicator of a criminal too.

Sort of, but by the sounds of it, he didn't mean to imply it.

But that to me is a logical leap for him to make.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

It is, however, a very good indicator of intolerance. Most people who continue to call them Y, after being corrected repeatedly, are doing so purposely. Usually because they are intolerant.

Isn't that stereotyping? I suspect you also say black skin is an indicator of a criminal too.

Again, I understand the intent, but the words being used here to shame the opposition are the wrong words.

Not really. It's based on actions, not existence. Someone actively treating a minority group who are often discriminated against negatively? Probably intolerant. Again, not all are, some are just inconsiderate donkey-caves with nothing better to do than be cruel, but most are.

And very weird accusation of racism there, badly worded perhaps.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
It is, however, a very good indicator of intolerance. Most people who continue to call them Y, after being corrected repeatedly, are doing so purposely. Usually because they are intolerant. Not always, they could just be an ass, but usually.

Exactly. If you make a pronoun mistake once out of ignorance and use the right label once you're corrected, that's fine. Nobody is expecting perfection. If you continue to use the wrong pronoun/name/whatever because you think you know more about someone's own identity than they do you're a .


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Asherian Command wrote:
But technically specially biologically you are that gender.

You've got it completely backwards. Sex = physical characteristics defined by biology (which reproductive organs you have, etc). Gender = social role and identity. Biology tells you sex, not gender.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
It is, however, a very good indicator of intolerance. Most people who continue to call them Y, after being corrected repeatedly, are doing so purposely. Usually because they are intolerant. Not always, they could just be an ass, but usually.

Exactly. If you make a pronoun mistake once out of ignorance and use the right label once you're corrected, that's fine. Nobody is expecting perfection. If you continue to use the wrong pronoun/name/whatever because you think you know more about someone's own identity than they do you're a .


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Asherian Command wrote:
But technically specially biologically you are that gender.

You've got it completely backwards. Sex = physical characteristics defined by biology (which reproductive organs you have, etc). Gender = social role and identity. Biology tells you sex, not gender.

Wow that really confusing, If do say so myself O.o

Why not just be rid of gender if it practically means nothing?

I don't understand if you guys are so against gender being assigned (in my opinion it should be unless there is a good reason to change it) and change them at will why not just aim for the end of gender?

Instead of doing that weird thing with those long lists of genders why not just do away with them? A serious question.

Here's a way to remember that? Which one is a physical activity, sex or gender?

And I found the heresy...

 Swastakowey wrote:
Why not just be rid of gender if it practically means nothing?

Because that's not a realistic goal in the foreseeable future. A much more achievable goal is to acknowledge that binary gender isn't as neat as people often think it is. And the common saying is "don't let perfect be the enemy of good".

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Here's a way to remember that? Which one is a physical activity, sex or gender?

Thats Easy Gender! /asherian's joking

On a more serious note.

Why not just be rid of gender if it practically means nothing?

It doesn't mean nothing, there is alot of meaning behind identifying as a gender. I mean why have political parties at all? Why have different philisophies? Its all apart of the fundamentals of human kind. We need something to identify with. Gender doesn't mean nothing, it is clearly something. That something is comfort of mind, and soul.

I don't understand if you guys are so against gender being assigned (in my opinion it should be unless there is a good reason to change it) and change them at will why not just aim for the end of gender?

We are against gender being as black and white as it currently is. It is not about gender fluidity it is about stereotypes that is bad.

 Swastakowey wrote:
Why not just be rid of gender if it practically means nothing?

I don't understand if you guys are so against gender being assigned (in my opinion it should be unless there is a good reason to change it) and change them at will why not just aim for the end of gender?

Instead of doing that weird thing with those long lists of genders why not just do away with them? A serious question.

Honestly, I'd love it if we could (everybody equal able to do what they want, without sociatal pressures, free to express themselves in whatever way they like), but gender and gender politics are so ingrained in the human psyche, I doubt we'll ever be able to. Maybe once we're all genetically engineered, roboticaly enhanced, post-humans.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
Why not just be rid of gender if it practically means nothing?

Because that's not a realistic goal in the foreseeable future. A much more achievable goal is to acknowledge that binary gender isn't as neat as people often think it is. And the common saying is "don't let perfect be the enemy of good".

I thought so, so really this is just to "undermine" the idea of gender.

I don't think everyone has the memo though... otherwise more people would claim to be gender-less rather than simply choosing one of the genders society has put in place. Seems like these people are very constraned by gender and firmly believe they can be X gender rather than trying to free themselves of gender all together.

 Asherian Command wrote:
Wow that really confusing, If do say so myself O.o

It's actually pretty straightforward, at least in terms of the difference between sex and gender. If you're talking about physical attributes in a way that you could talk about a male cow vs. a female cow then you're talking about sex. If you're talking about social roles and identity that only apply to humans you're talking about gender.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
Wow that really confusing, If do say so myself O.o

It's actually pretty straightforward, at least in terms of the difference between sex and gender. If you're talking about physical attributes in a way that you could talk about a male cow vs. a female cow then you're talking about sex. If you're talking about social roles and identity that only apply to humans you're talking about gender.

Thats sounds pretty confusing...