calling someone 'Ed' is offensive to retarded Canadians who cant pronounce 'eh'?what if you just called them Ed or Jim or Frank or whatever their name is?
That's not how language works, and it's not how identity works. Both of these are tacit agreements made among groups of people about how to interact, and they're constantly under renegotiation. In no case is either one defined subjectively by an individual and then everyone else is required to play along. Language relies on meanings of words being agreed upon mutually, so the idea that words can have different, valid meanings from individual to individual pretty much shits on the entire idea of linguistic communication. Identity, similarly, is a constant tug of war between how an individual wishes to present themselves versus how the people around them are willing to acknowledge them. At no point ever is your identity 100% definitively decided by you.they may, but to my earlier point, no one can define your religion or political affiliation. someone can say theyre gay, and someone else can say 'no way, gay people dont do what you do'. whos right in that situation?
the one defining themselves, or the one applying a label and 'acceptable' definition to someone else who never said they lived within societies definition of something?
to some, but not all
I know plenty of lesbians who got tired of a woman and tried a man. does that mean they can never call themselves gay again?
isnt it possible who you are today isnt based on things youve done? but rather how you live?
possibly because they'd rather define themselves than let everyone else define them
So you're actually not even arguing in favor of transgender pronoun use here. You're actually arguing for the abolition of the entire concept of gender. That's fine, but you have to realize that 99% of human society (including almost all trans folk, as it happens) won't be keen on going along with that. Gender is a social construct that basically everyone finds has some sort of good social utility (it would never even have emerged if it didn't), and most people are going to be unwilling to give that up.but thats my larger point. humans are far too complicated to be put into rigid character roles.
other people dont have to 'make sense' to be normal
I eat veal, yet I support animal rights (theyre fucking dead already. eat that shit)
its possible to wear different 'hats' and be different people at different times
Sex is biological. Gender is a social construct. If you disagree, then I'd love to see your argument for the biological basis for why women wear dresses or their hair long, why gender is expressed differently across different cultures, or why pink was a masculine color a couple centuries ago before mysteriously becoming feminine.Words matter. Biology matters. Science matters. If you are born with a Y chromosome you are a male. End of discussion. Me calling you a female because you want it that way does not make you a female. When I was 15 I wanted to be 21 so I could get drunk in a bar. Calling myself 21 didn't make me 21. This is no different.
And get the fuck outta here with that gender is a social construct crap. It's biology. It's science. It's anatomy. It's the entire endocrine system in your body. Males and females are different, very different. It's not a social construct, it's a fact of nature.
I agree with pretty much everything you've said on this subject, except for the part I bolded. Gay and straight tend to refer to identity more than behavior. It's a minor distinction but it does matter. For instance, in the medical field, we often state risk factors in a patient's note to convey to a future reader (most likely another healthcare provider) pieces of the basis of our diagnostic reasoning. And in patient notes, the words "gay" and "lesbian" mean virtually nothing. "Men who have sex with men", usually abbreviated "MSM" is the term we use instead of "gay", and it generally means we are considering the possibility that the patient may have a higher risk of contracting HIV and screening for HIV should be a part of their routine preventive care. "Gay" does not convey that idea, especially because someone can identify as "gay" and have sex with women for any number of reasons, or be completely celibate.But that's just it, terms like "gay" and "straight" tend to refer to actual behaviors, and if one person were to claim the label of one while exhibiting all the identifiable characteristics of the other, people would balk at that. If Dan Bilzerian suddenly started "identifying as a gay man" without changing his lifestyle or behavior at all, people would give him seriously funny looks. "Gay" and "straight" mean pretty specific things, as do "man" and "woman" to the vast majority of the human population of this planet. The few folks who disagree with the latter meaning just seem to have a very hard time saying what those terms mean to them.
Now, again, none of this at all is to say that it's unacceptable or wrong for one person who have personality traits/fashion preferences/whatever that are outside the norm for their sex. I'm just trying to get the folks who think that females can be men and males can be women to come up with a coherent explanation of what that even means.
The only gripe I have with this is that it's basically hair-splitting. The fact that certain terms aren't useful or informative in a medical context doesn't mean that they aren't in common speech.I agree with pretty much everything you've said on this subject, except for the part I bolded. Gay and straight tend to refer to identity more than behavior. It's a minor distinction but it does matter. For instance, in the medical field, we often state risk factors in a patient's note to convey to a future reader (most likely another healthcare provider) pieces of the basis of our diagnostic reasoning. And in patient notes, the words "gay" and "lesbian" mean virtually nothing. "Men who have sex with men", usually abbreviated "MSM" is the term we use instead of "gay", and it generally means we are considering the possibility that the patient may have a higher risk of contracting HIV and screening for HIV should be a part of their routine preventive care. "Gay" does not convey that idea, especially because someone can identify as "gay" and have sex with women for any number of reasons, or be completely celibate.
A person's self image and behavior can certainly be at odds, but that just makes the person's self image inaccurate. People are wrong about who they are all the time. Just look at our current President.The reason the distinction is important is because identity and behavior can be at odds with each other. If someone identifies as a straight man, but has an isolated sexual experience with another man, reconciling that with his identity is a more difficult task than doing so would be if he comfortably identified as bisexual. Again, that has actual ramifications on what type of distress the person may deal with as a result of their behavior and identity.
Social constructs are not subjective at the level of the individual. They aren't personal. They're about generally agreed-upon concepts and protocols, so what a particular individual thinks about them is irrelevant.I completely agree with what you have said about the fact that gender conveys important social information, but that statement is coming from the perspective of someone who identifies as a cis-gendered heterosexual male. And, before I lose you because of that statement, I want to point out that this perspective is a perfectly valid one, an idea to which many on the left do not subscribe.
If I were to present a hypothetical person to who rejected other social constructs like money, laws, or rights, would you find this person's perspectives relevant and worthy of social accommodation?But if someone is a pansexual who sees gender as fluid, it is easy to understand why they don't place the same value on gender distinctions as you do. They do not see their gender or sexual orientation as barriers for them to engage in sexual or romantic behavior, so those distinctions are of little value from their perspective. The trouble that they run into is that the distinctions are VERY important to someone who does care about the gender or sexuality of a potential sexual or romantic partner.
Gender isn't a product of consciously-held social values any more than language is. How gender and language manifest in a particular culture is certainly culturally driven, but social representations of sex (which, at its most basic level is what gender is) and syntactic communication almost certainly predate human civilization.So basically what I'm saying is that the strife that exists on this issue is probably mostly due to two or more wildly divergent value systems and ideologies, and until we understand what is important to each side and why, we are unlikely to make any reasonable headway any time soon.
No arguments here, but I'll add that any worthwhile reevaluation requires an honest understanding of what's being reevaluated, and I think that's something that's sorely lacking.I tend to think that societal norms should not be immune from occasional reexamination and criticism. But this one is tough because there does seem to be some denial of science coming from the "progressive" side in order to advance an agenda for seemingly no reason other than virtue signaling and casting a broader net for those who can claim social victimhood. Which is insulting to those who genuinely deal with gender identity issues. Is gender going to be as important to our society going forward as it has in the past? Who knows? That will be decided by the values of those who inherit our society, and right now a large portion of that demographic seems to be in favor of reevaluating.
In the past 3 years i have worked with 2 tans people, one a man who wants to be a women and a young girl who wants to be a boy,the latter one didn't seem to mind me calling him her, in my defense she really looks like a girl, she just looks like lesbian not a man.Am I wrong for not fully grasping the trans discussion and what is deemed controversial when it comes to trans folk?
I have no qualms calling someone who was born biologically a male/female whatever pronoun they wish to be addressed as and I will go along with calling them him/her etc. What confuses me is why trans folk get upset when they make a statement that alludes to the fact that they were not born the sex they wished to be addressed as and someone points out a scientific fact, example below.
When someone outright states that they can "get pregnant" that in of itself means that this person is a female, right? How is it offensive to point that out. To me it's the same when someone points out too trans men that feminism by its definition would cater towards women and issues that are unique to women.
The trans discussion for me stopped at people who wish to identify as....cool. Bob identifies as Barb and wants to be referenced as a she rather than he, no problem. But does 'Barb' now get to be included on issues that are unique to women (biologically) that Barb couldn't possibly understand? And vice versa?