Support NeoGAF

[Puddles]

It is called showing respect. Show some fucking respect to the numerous transgendered individuals on this forum that have not yet physically transitioned or are still in the process.

If someone defines themselves as female, use the proper pronouns for them. If your friend came out to you and said they identified as female, would you honestly go "sorry dude, no you aren't until you get surgery?"

Yes, people who don't know that person's situation will get the gender wrong based purely off appearance. Not sure how that applies here when we do know how the details.

Is the debate closed on this? The article listed in the OP refers to this guy as 'Mr. Kosilek' and uses the pronouns 'he', 'his', and 'him'. I understand some may have different standards of etiquette, but can said standards be considered universal if the goddamn Wall Street Journal doesn't comply with them?

Anyway, we're talking about a murderer, not Biznik's friend.

 

[JeTmAn81]

People really need to lay off the pronoun outrage. You're not changing anything by jumping down their throats every time this happens.

 

[Lancehead]

Semantics of gender discussions can be very tricky. I think we should be willing to give people benefit of the doubt if they don't use the "correct" term.

 

[CornBurrito]

Is the debate closed on this? The article listed in the OP refers to this guy as 'Mr. Kosilek' and uses the pronouns 'he', 'his', and 'him'. I understand some may have different standards of etiquette, but can said standards be considered universal if the goddamn Wall Street Journal doesn't comply with them?

Anyway, we're talking about a murderer, not Biznik's friend.

Not referring to a trans individual as the gender they identify with is probably offensive to a great deal of trans people, regardless of whether the person being spoken about is a murderer.

It only adds to the all too common idea that trans individuals aren't "real" men or women.

 

[Dead Man]

People really need to lay off the pronoun outrage. You're not changing anything by jumping down their throats every time this happens.

If people are not corrected, they will not learn the more polite usages, and may offend some people without meaning to.

Semantics of gender discussions can be very tricky. I think we should be willing to give people benefit of the doubt if they don't use the "correct" term.

This too, there is often no need to be obnoxious about it, a polite reminder will do.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYOzUHnPJvU

 

[Puddles]

Not referring to a trans individual as the gender they identify with is probably offensive to a great deal of trans people, regardless of whether the person being spoken about is a murderer.

It only adds to the all too common idea that trans individuals aren't "real" men or women.

I hope they take it up with the Wall Street Journal. Not everyone is as liberal on this subject as you seem to be. I'll leave it at that.

I'm going to back away from this thread as well. Discussion is pointless since the ruling has already been made.

 

[CornBurrito]

I hope they take it up with the Wall Street Journal. Not everyone is as liberal on this subject as you seem to be. I'll leave it at that.

Yeah I understand some people do not make any attempt to be respectful towards transgendered people or understand where transgendered individuals come from.

 

[Puddles]

Yeah I understand some people do not make any attempt to be respectful towards transgendered people or understand where transgendered individuals come from.

Self-righteousness is not going to win people over.

 

[JeTmAn81]

If people are not corrected, they will not learn the more polite usages, and may offend some people without meaning to.

NeoGAF is not an appropriate forum for "correcting" others about sensitive issues such as these. At the most this stuff should be done via PM.

 

[brokenbeans]

Special treatment eh?

 

[Dead Man]

Self-righteousness is not going to win people over.

You were the one saying you were not liberal enough to use a pronoun.

NeoGAF is not an appropriate forum for "correcting" others about sensitive issues such as these. At the most this stuff should be done via PM.

GAF is not an appropriate forum? Are you high? It is the most appropriate one I can think of becuase it is anonymous and not face to face.

 

[JeTmAn81]

GAF is not an appropriate forum? Are you high? It is the most appropriate one I can think of becuase it is anonymous and not face to face.

When's the last time you actually convinced someone or saw someone genuinely convinced to change their opinions/behavior based on something someone said to them on the internet?

 

[CornBurrito]

Self-righteousness is not going to win people over.

And scientific publications regarding brain differences in transgendered individuals probably won't win you over either.

Sorry that you are "not liberal" enough to respect the transgendered individuals on this forum.

 

[Dead Man]

When's the last time you actually convinced someone or saw someone genuinely convinced to change their opinions/behavior based on something someone said to them on the internet?

In trans threads I see a lot of posters worry about what pronoun to use, and when it is explained they are cool. It is a small thing, but important to those it impacts. It takes nothing away from you by using them as requested.

Not the proper forum... lol.

 

[kehs]

When's the last time you actually convinced someone or saw someone genuinely convinced to change their opinions/behavior based on something someone said to them on the internet?

That shit happens all the time here.

That is if you actually participate in discussions.

 

[Puddles]

And scientific publications regarding brain differences in transgendered individuals probably won't win you over either.

They might. Link them.

In any case, there is a certain level of respect I would show to people I knew IRL or to people on a forum like Billiechu, or to non-murderers basically, that I'm not particularly inclined to show for Kosilek.

Sorry that you are "not liberal" enough to respect the transgendered individuals on this forum.

Find one of my posts where I called one of them by the wrong pronoun.

 

[Dead Man]

They might. Link them.

In any case, there is a certain level of respect I would show to people I knew IRL or to people on a forum like Billiechu, or to non-murderers basically, that I'm not particularly inclined to show for Kosilek.

By showing it to Kosilek, you are showing it to Billieche et al.

 

[JeTmAn81]

That shit happens all the time here.

That is if you actually participate in discussions.

It can happen if you're actually respecting the person you're trying to change, and if you actually know them a bit, but not if you simply shout at them like they're in kindergarten and you're the teacher.

 

[Puddles]

By showing it to Kosilek, you are showing it to Billieche et al.

Perhaps. Something to consider, I guess.

 

[CornBurrito]

They might. Link them.

I'll link to a place with a good collection of published articles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_transsexualism#Biological-based_theories

Perhaps. Something to consider, I guess.

Maybe, just maybe Billiechu insisting on people using female pronouns was her way of letting you know it bothered her.

 

[Forever]

By showing it to Kosilek, you are showing it to Billieche et al.

I don't subscribe to this. If I respect an individual I can do that without extending it to others and the same is true of disrespect. To be clear, transgendered people should enjoy freedom to do as they please with their bodies, and they should enjoy freedom from persecution. However, I don't believe that there is an inalienable right to have your pronouns readjusted and I would be wary of judging someone for being unwilling to amend their vocabulary for the sake of a criminal.

In most cases, any form of casual courtesy costs you nothing and makes the recipient feel better, so it is generally better to show it. But not everyone is entitled to courtesy.

 

[CornBurrito]

I don't subscribe to this. If I respect an individual I can do that without extending it to others and the same is true of disrespect. To be clear, transgendered people should enjoy freedom to do as they please with their bodies, and they should enjoy freedom from persecution. However, I don't believe that there is an inalienable right to have your pronouns readjusted and I would be wary of judging someone for being unwilling to amend their vocabulary for the sake of a criminal.

So you'd have no problem with racist terminology being used in threads where the criminal was black, or jewish?

I know racist terminology is quite a bit more offensive, but I want to know how far this extends.

 

[Forever]

So you'd have no problem with racist terminology being used in threads where the criminal was black, or jewish?

Addressing a biological male using male pronouns is not comparable.

I know racist terminology is quite a bit more offensive, but I want to know how far this extends.

I really don't see any logical progression between the two.

 

[zoku88]

However, I don't believe that there is an inalienable right to have your pronouns readjusted and I would be wary of judging someone for being unwilling to amend their vocabulary for the sake of a criminal.

And people don't have the right to not be called racist slurs, but people usually don't do that to others anyway.

I wonder why...

 

[CornBurrito]

I really don't see any logical progression between the two.

Addressing transgendered individuals by their birth sex instead of the gender they identify as is generally offensive and disrespectful.

What makes racist terminology so different? Only real difference I can see is that nobody uses racist terminology accidentally.

 

[Forever]

Addressing transgendered individuals by their birth sex instead of the gender they identify as is generally offensive and disrespectful.

If nobody is entitled to respect, what makes racist terminology so different? Only real difference I can see is that nobody uses racist terminology accidentally.

I don't think the comparison to racial slurs passes the logic test because it disregards completely the objective differences in context and only focuses on the subjective effect it has on individuals, which is subject to some variance.

I personally believe that race and sex as immutable characteristics are important to protecting them legally and form the basis of the arguments that preserve their rights. No amount of bleach would allow Michael Jackson (or anyone else) to legally identify as white, and no cosmetic surgery can change your sex. This is the very reason why women and African Americans enjoy certain protections and benefits by virtue of their immutable characteristics--they cannot choose to be anything but what they are.

It is by that logic that I do not accept the idea that pronouns should be used, as a rule, according to a person's personal preferences and not according to biology. I know it means a lot to some people, so I am often inclined to indulge them as it costs me nothing and I prefer to pick my battles carefully. But I don't agree with it.

 

[GungHo]

When's the last time you actually convinced someone or saw someone genuinely convinced to change their opinions/behavior based on something someone said to them on the internet?

I have changed my choice of words based on someone telling me that my choice of words was hurtful. I did clarify my intent, but never used the words again.

Admittedly, there are different methods of communicating to someone that they've said something that hurts and some are more effective than others. At the end of the day, though, if someone's come out and told you "hey this bothers me" whether they were eloquent and said "gender confusion has hurt me tremendously and I would appreciate if you referred to this person as 'her'" or they were blunt and said "her her her her her her", it's not going to help anyone by saying, "NUH-UH! HIM HIM HIM". At that point, you're just picking at a sore.

 

[thatbox]

I don't subscribe to this. If I respect an individual I can do that without extending it to others and the same is true of disrespect. To be clear, transgendered people should enjoy freedom to do as they please with their bodies, and they should enjoy freedom from persecution. However, I don't believe that there is an inalienable right to have your pronouns readjusted and I would be wary of judging someone for being unwilling to amend their vocabulary for the sake of a criminal.

In most cases, any form of casual courtesy costs you nothing and makes the recipient feel better, so it is generally better to show it. But not everyone is entitled to courtesy.

So you wouldn't call Blackace a nigger out of respect for him, but you might call an incarcerated murderer a nigger because you don't respect him? And you don't think any black posters on this forum might take that poorly? Good luck with that.

 

[Forever]

So you wouldn't call Blackace a nigger out of respect for him, but you might call an incarcerated murderer a nigger because you don't respect him? And you don't think any black posters on this forum might take that poorly? Good luck with that.

Or you could read.

 

[zoku88]

I don't think the comparison to racial slurs passes the logic test because it disregards completely the objective differences in context and only focuses on the subjective effect it has on individuals, which is subject to some variance.

What is the objective difference?

Objectively, race is a social construct, as is gender.

Why is one obligated to use the right terms for one social construct and not the other?

 

[Forever]

What is the objective difference?

Objectively, race is a social construct, as is gender.

Why is one obligated to use the right terms for one social construct and not the other?

Because you didn't address the rest of my post.

 

[thatbox]

I don't think the comparison to racial slurs passes the logic test because it disregards completely the objective differences in context and only focuses on the subjective effect it has on individuals, which is subject to some variance.

I personally believe that race and sex as immutable characteristics are important to protecting them legally and form the basis of the arguments that preserve their rights. No amount of bleach would allow Michael Jackson (or anyone else) to legally identify as white, and no cosmetic surgery can change your sex. This is the very reason why women and African Americans enjoy certain protections and benefits by virtue of their immutable characteristics--they cannot choose to be anything but what they are.

It is by that logic that I do not accept the idea that pronouns should be used, as a rule, according to a person's personal preferences and not according to biology. I know it means a lot to some people, so I am often inclined to indulge them as it costs me nothing and I prefer to pick my battles carefully. But I don't agree with it.

You're aware that trans people don't choose to be trans, right? Why the fuck would anyone want that when the world is full of people like you?

Typical trans women aren't women and trans men aren't men bullshit.

 

[zoku88]

Because you didn't address the rest of my post.

The rest of the post was talking about sex, which isn't what we're talking about.

We're talking about gender.


You're also talking about choices. People choose to have reassignment surgery. People don't choose to be of a certain gender.

EDIT: Also, sexual discrimination laws apply to discrimination against transgender people, as well.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/25/u...protection-extended-to-transgender-woman.html

 

[Forever]

You're aware that trans people don't choose to be trans, right? Why the fuck would anyone want that when the world is full of people like you?

Typical trans women aren't women and trans men aren't men bullshit.

If you are bent on antagonizing and demonizing anyone with the slightest deviation from your creed, regardless of how much else you might agree with them on, then I think you will find that you have more in common with religious fundamentalists than I do.

The rest of the post was talking about sex, which isn't what we're talking about.

We're talking about gender.

The aspects of society that keep women oppressed are also social constructs and the law makes no distinction between sex and gender. If women can choose to not be women then there is no longer a justification, in my view, for affirmative action or other systems that are meant to advantage women.

 

[zoku88]

The aspects of society that keep women oppressed are also social constructs and the law makes no distinction between sex and gender. If women can choose to not be women then there is no longer a justification, in my view, for affirmative action or other systems that are meant to advantage women.

False premise, because there is no choice.

Also, see my edit.

 

[Forever]

there is no choice.

That's exactly what I'm saying.

As for your article, I see that an argument against allowing people to legally change their gender.

 

[CornBurrito]

The aspects of society that keep women oppressed are also social constructs and the law makes no distinction between sex and gender. If women can choose to not be women then there is no longer a justification, in my view, for affirmative action or other systems that are meant to advantage women.

> Choose

Interesting choice of words. When did you choose to be male (gender, not sex)? I am assuming you are male. But if thats not the case just change the word male to female.

How many people do you honestly think would change their sex when it wouldn't match their gender?

 

[zoku88]

That's exactly what I'm saying.

I mean, there is no choice for transgender people. You don't choose your sex, you don't choose your race, you don't choose your gender.

And there's protection for all of these, in law. (discrimination against transgender people falls under sex discrimination.)

 

[Forever]

I mean, there is no choice for transgender people.

I know they can't choose what they prefer. They also cannot choose to be something they're not. There are plenty of people who would reassign their race if they could. They can't, and so long as we have legal protections and benefits available to them based on their race, they shouldn't be able to. This is more important than you might realize.

 

[Nairume]

I don't think the comparison to racial slurs passes the logic test because it disregards completely the objective differences in context and only focuses on the subjective effect it has on individuals, which is subject to some variance.

I personally believe that race and sex as immutable characteristics are important to protecting them legally and form the basis of the arguments that preserve their rights. No amount of bleach would allow Michael Jackson (or anyone else) to legally identify as white, and no cosmetic surgery can change your sex. This is the very reason why women and African Americans enjoy certain protections and benefits by virtue of their immutable characteristics--they cannot choose to be anything but what they are.

It is by that logic that I do not accept the idea that pronouns should be used, as a rule, according to a person's personal preferences and not according to biology. I know it means a lot to some people, so I am often inclined to indulge them as it costs me nothing and I prefer to pick my battles carefully. But I don't agree with it.

So, if I am reading this right, you are saying that, rather than letting people understand/define their own identity, it is more important that they stick with whatever definition is given to them by the color of their skin or what's between their legs, for the sake of protection against discrimination, because people being able to change their identity based on what they want may potentially allow them to abuse the system.

Wouldn't it be better to simply render the need for those protections unnecessary by curbing discrimination by encouraging our society to stop placing such emphasis on race/gender to where we do have racial/gender-based discrimination? Because if that is the case, then you are contributing to the problem, no matter how you are trying to justify it to yourself.

Also, it's insanely silly to suggest that somebody would willingly want to get a sex change JUST so they could get special protections from discrimination....caused by their sex change.

 

[zoku88]

As for your article, I see that an argument against allowing people to legally change their gender.

How the hell do you get that from that article?

I know they can't choose what they prefer. They also cannot choose to be something they're not. There are plenty of people who would reassign their race if they could. They can't, and so long as we have legal protections and benefits available to them based on their race, they shouldn't be able to. This is more important than you might realize.

Irrelevant, because as been established, there are legal protections for transgendered people, under the sex-discrimination umbrella.

 

[Forever]

How the hell do you get that from that article?

Irrelevant, because as been established, there are legal protections for transgendered people, under the sex-discrimination umbrella.

I'm not talking about legal protections for transgendered people, I'm talking about legal protections for women which are based on the idea of immutable characteristics. Until such time that the law makes a clear distinction between sex and gender, opening these criteria to change upon request erodes the logical foundation of civil rights. Immutable characteristics are absolutely not irrelevant; I think you just don't want to confront their importance. Another point: You claim that gender as a social construct is what allows it to be malleable. Many would, and have, and do argue that race is also a social construct. No one would advance the notion that race is not immutable.

I personally cannot find any basis to single out and protect traits that are not immutable. Intellectual consistency demands that I hold gender as immutable as well. If you feel that traits should be protected without regard for immutability, then we obviously have room for disagreement: But if it comes to that, then I would want to know by what criteria you would choose to legally divide people in society without involving dangerous subjectivity.

 

[Nairume]

Another point: You claim that gender as a social construct is what allows it to be malleable. Many would, and have, and do argue that race is also a social construct. No one would advance the notion that race is not immutable.

I personally cannot find any basis to single out and protect traits that are not immutable. Intellectual consistency demands that I hold gender as immutable as well.

It seems like the issue here is that you are conflating gender and sex. Let's take a look at what Webster has to say about Gender

the behavioral,cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex

There's no "claiming" that gender is a social construct. It is by definition.

 

[Forever]

It seems like the issue here is that you are conflating gender and sex. Let's take a look at what Webster has to say about Gender

There's no "claiming" that gender is a social construct. It is by definition.

I never contested that gender is a social construct, I contest the idea that it should not be an immutable characteristic.

 

[Windu]

I hope tax dollars are not paying for this.

 

[zoku88]

I'm not talking about legal protections for transgendered people, I'm talking about legal protections for women which are based on the idea of immutable characteristics. Until such time that the law makes a clear distinction between sex and gender, opening these criteria to change upon request erodes the logical foundation of civil rights. Immutable characteristics are absolutely not irrelevant; I think you just don't want to confront their importance. Another point: You claim that gender as a social construct is what allows it to be malleable. Many would, and have, and do argue that race is also a social construct. No one would advance the notion that race is not immutable.

It's irrelevant to the point at hand. The legal protection already exists. The legal protections for women and transgendered people are the same.

It's also irrelevant to what pronoun you should use when you refer to people. You are legally allowed to use a racial slur against someone. But you shouldn't, because it's insulting someone's race, which they didn't choose.

You could use the wrong pronoun for someone's gender, but you shouldn't, because it's insulting to someone's gender, which they also didn't choose.

These two things are equatable, because they are both social constructs.

What race is what depends on society (therefore mutable, but not within a certain society.) There is no scientific basis for race.

I said that gender was also a social construct, but that may not be the correct word, because there is actually scientific basis for gender separate from sex.


Btw, you misquoted me. You said something like: "You claim that gender as a social construct is what allows it to be malleable". That is only a correct claim of my claims is you agree with my characterization of race, in which, given a certain society, it is NOT malleable.

 

[Osietra]

Do transgendered people enjoy the usual rights if they get married?
In the US ofc.

 

[Forever]

It's irrelevant to the point at hand. The legal protection already exists. The legal protections for women and transgendered people are the same.

It's also irrelevant to what pronoun you should use when you refer to people. You are legally allowed to use a racial slur against someone. But you shouldn't, because it's insulting someone's race, which they didn't choose.

You could use the wrong pronoun for someone's gender, but you shouldn't, because it's insulting to someone's gender, which they also didn't choose.

These two things are equatable, because they are both social constructs.

What race is what depends on society (therefore mutable, but not within a certain society.) There is no scientific basis for race.

I said that gender was also a social construct, but that may not be the correct word, because there is actually scientific basis for gender separate from sex.

I don't feel that you are actually addressing the logical arguments in my post, you are instead dismissing them as irrelevant and going off on a tangent. As was just helpfully elucidated by Nairume, gender is by definition a social construct. Race is a social construct. These are both treated as immutable characteristics, and as such they enjoy legal protection--the fact that transgendered individuals are covered under laws intended to protect women, laws that exist on the premise of immutable gender, strikes me as a logical inconsistency that undermines the basis of protection for minority groups. When our society has advanced to the point that these immutable characteristics truly do become irrelevant, then I could see a reasonable argument for leaving these criteria open to change. But we're not there yet.

That's my position. I'm sure you won't agree with it, but I'm glad that we could have a civil exchange of ideas.

 

[GungHo]

Do transgendered people enjoy the usual rights if they get married?
In the US ofc.

No.

 

[Nairume]

How is it a logical inconsistency that somebody that walks, talks, thinks, acts, dresses, and everything else like a woman but just happens to have had a penis at some point in their past be legally recognized as a woman and receive protection and other things for being a woman? It's not like they chose to undergo the months of counciling, potential lifetime of exclusion from former social and familial groups, and then numerous expensive surgeries and treatments just so they could take advantage of those sweet sweet affirmative action benefits.