I see you

[Joe Guy]

Seems to me that if 'Stacy' prefers to be 'they' (etc.) it's no skin off my nose

I agree; Stacy can do as he or she wishes. But I won't use "they" and Stacy can like it or lump it. His or her choice.

I agree. Stacy can do as they wishes.

[Big RR]

I made no mention of naughty bits. Gender is determined by XY and XX. Gender roles on the other hand, are societal.

So what gender are XXY or XYY individuals? Or 46, XY DSD individulas who have the XY genotype but have female sexual characteristics? There are others as well.

Gender is not only a matter of genetics, but development as well; why dismiss the disorders you are somewhat uncomfortable with as not existing?

[Guinevere]

Seems to me that if 'Stacy' prefers to be 'they' (etc.) it's no skin off my nose

I agree; Stacy can do as he or she wishes. But I won't use "they" and Stacy can like it or lump it. His or her choice.

You keep on preaching love, but you have ignored respect (and my specific points about same). Love is nothing without respect.

[RayThom]

Genderism is also a Fundamentalism issue widely held by true believers.

If you're into preaching the good book you'll personally interpret that there's absolutely no wiggle room for any other gender than male and female. No grey areas allowed. Book closed.

God said it, they believe it, that settles it.

Genesis:
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

[ex-khobar Andy]

We're lucky in that English is far less gendered than most European and other languages. 'Friend' covers both sexes but in French you would need ami or amie; German has Freund and Freundin; Arabic has sadiq and sadiqa; Spanish has amigo and amiga. The world didn't go to hell when English speakers, who may have had Latin or Saxon linguistic roots, abandoned gendered nouns. I suspect we will survive when pronouns become neutered.

[Econoline]

In Hebrew not only are all nouns, pronouns, and adjectives gendered (masculine/feminine with no exceptions), but also all verbs are declined as masculine singular, masculine plural, feminine singular, and feminine plural. (A mixed-gender group is masculine plural if there is even one male included; feminine plural is used only if everyone is female.) You literally cannot say anything gender-neutral in Hebrew.

"Male and female created he them"...indeed.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Big RR, "disorders"? Oh my dear, you will likely lose your merit badge for that! But it seems to me that those who are "disordered" are indeed neither one thing nor the other two. Many of those, are there? Anybody got numbers?

Guin: I've made it clear I will respect people by referring to them by name; by using the word "person"; by accepting them as equally rightful human beings in the world; and so on. But I am not going to use "they" and "them" as personal pronouns because I don't want to and y'all can respect that or do the other thing. Further, I am extremely unlikely to run into anyone who will demand to be referred to as "they" rather than he or she. If I do, I'll let you know how that goes.

Ray - you got it disordered. "God said it; it's true; I believe it".

And I'm also a great believer in gender-neutral toilets, such as my local cinema has installed. One door behind which is a hallway with several doors giving entrance to private cubicles with their own hand washing and drying facility. And a toilet bowl. Personally, I think they could do away with the first door and hallway. Why not just have the toilet doors/cubicles open along an interior wall of the mall itself? We seem to manage with "festival" toilets out in the open - why do we hide facilities in a separate room? (I hope you understand the point. This is not to advocate open door toilets or anything embarrassing to anyone at all).

[Gob]

As I say, you can choose to think of yourself as man, woman, half rice half chips, or a fucking penguin for all I care, but your CHOICE to describe yourself as such places no obligation on me to call you what you CHOOSE to describe yourself as...

[Scooter]

You are absolutely correct, nothing and/or no one can obligate you to afford anyone else a basic level of human dignity and respect by not intentionally misgendering them. That requires only an essential human decency that can only come from within you.

[Big RR]

Com on Meade, labeling a genetic condition as a "disorder" implies no judgment, just noting that the "ordinary" order of the of the chromosomes is not evidenced. Likewise, development can be influenced by many things other than genetics, and this can cause disruption of expressed characteristics, hence a disorder. However, if that word were to somehow offend groups of persons, I'd be more than happy to use a word that is less offensive. Why wouldn't you?

Gob--don't we all have some obligation to avoid unnecessary offense? Why would avoiding this offense bother you? Can't you CHOOSE to avoid that offense?

[MajGenl.Meade]

Oh, Big RR. Sorry I'm a bit too busy being a fake Christian to respond in detail. But I'm not sure what on earth we are talking about. If you now bring "disorders" into this, then I point back to my first thought that the world is going insane, which is perhaps an old-fashioned and not so accepted parallel to "disordered". (Although granted, that comment was meant to apply more widely)

Must I keep on repeating that "I will not refer to a person as 'them' or 'they'. I will instead use their name" Is there something wrong with that? Disrespectful?

I will continue to think in what passes for my brain, that people who "feel" that they are of neither gender (and that's their only basis - "feeling") remain gendered. I don't have to say that to them; I don't have to treat them badly or unfairly; I don't even have to insist on calling such a person 'he' or 'she'. But I can bloody well refuse to refer to another human as "they" or "them".

And in the case of my own son or daughter, he or she shall remain my son or daughter and I am happy to use their name when speaking of them. But they will always be he or she to me - unless/until they opt for sexual reassignment.

Anyway, back to being a POS - I have some babies to kick

[Big RR]

Meade--they're called disorders by the medical community which is what I have continued doing; if that label offends you, let me know what you would prefer. All I wanted to point out is that you define gender based on two Xs or one X and one Y chromosome. That is not a definitive way, as not all individuals fall into one group or the other (anymore than genitalia is). It's a much more complex mix of genetics and development, which is why I am happy to let people know what they prefer to be called, and then will attempt to use that. I understand that you do not want to be offensive and are willing to avoid gender based pronouns as much as possible, but I honestly cannot understand your reluctance to just call people what they ask you to call them; it costs you little and could mean the world to some of them. Many experience so much rejection that they could, rightly or wrongly, view your reluctance as a personal rejection, which I do not think is your goal.

[MajGenl.Meade]

I am happy to let people know what they prefer to be called

But I know what you're trying to say.

See, I was satirizing your use of "disorder" first time around. Here we were talking about folks with feelings (not mental disorders and not four X and three Y) and here you were bringing up "disorders". Perhaps you forgot that there was a time when homosexuality was regarded as a mental disorder? That is now very much not OK to say. Rightly so.

I don't think that transgender people have a mental disorder - although some may, as is true of some gendered folk, no doubt. But the discussion wasn't about transgender but about people who "feel" that they ain't a guy even though they are. Or ain't a gal, even though they are. I assumed from context that these were folks with XX or XY but who were not "comfortable" identifying as either. Seems to me more of a political statement than anything else but I don't know.

If you want to call that a "disorder", be my guest. Doesn't offend me but I'm surprised you haven't been beaten to death by PC Karen.

[Gob]

You are absolutely correct, nothing and/or no one can obligate you to afford anyone else a basic level of human dignity and respect by not intentionally misgendering them. That requires only an essential human decency that can only come from within you.

It's not possible "misgender" someone by refusing to use a self-chosen "they", is it?

[Gob]

Gob--don't we all have some obligation to avoid unnecessary offense? Why would avoiding this offense bother you? Can't you CHOOSE to avoid that offense?

If someone wishes to avoid unnecessary offence,then they can start by not demanding others conform to calling them a plural, it's pure idiocy.

Interesting how being half-rice half-chips entitles you to chose your plural status, but being any other way, entitles you only to conform to their wishes.

[Scooter]

It's not possible "misgender" someone by refusing to use a self-chosen "they", is it?

Yes it is, if you are calling them "he" or "she" when you know they don't identify with the gender implied by either of those.

If someone wishes to avoid unnecessary offence,then they can start by not demanding others conform to calling them a plural, it's pure idiocy.

Except "they" has been used for hundreds of years to refer to a single person of unknown or indefinite gender. Perhaps it has not yet achieved the standard status of "you" as a singular pronoun (or do you still insist on "thou"), but almost everyone does it, and if you say that you never have, you are lying. Insisting in this context that it is an erroneous plural is just you deciding to be precious.

[Scooter]

Interesting how being half-rice half-chips entitles you to chose your plural status, but being any other way, entitles you only to conform to their wishes.

Who, that is "half rice half chips" has insisted that someone else is not entitled to choose their own pronouns? A real example, or I'm calling bullshit.

[Big RR]

PC Karen.

Are there "PC Karens"? From the way I have seen that term used, it's pretty much the opposite; they're not the "I'll call you what you want to avoid offense" type; more the "I'll call you what I damn well please and the hell with how you feel about it" crowd.

[MajGenl.Meade]

PC Karen.

Are there "PC Karens"? From the way I have seen that term used, it's pretty much the opposite; they're not the "I'll call you what you want to avoid offense" type; more the "I'll call you what I damn well please and the hell with how you feel about it" crowd.

Neologism indicating a person who insists on her PC credentials* but then does the latter part to anyone who dares not to agree with her (or who does agree with her but blind fury on Karen's part blinds her to reality and truth).

*in another context, aka dick-waving

[datsunaholic]

I assume, Meade (and Gob), that you're one of those that refuses to address a woman as Ms then when she prefers such? You're stuck on "Miss" if she has never married or "Mrs" if she is or was, regardless of if she wishes to be addressed as Ms? I remember the big hullabaloo when women, particularly professional women, started using that prefix.

Or maybe you even resort to calling married women by their husband's name? Your wife would have to be addressed as "Mrs George Meade"? Or, if someone changes their name, you still insist on using their birth name (unless they are a married woman, then you insist on using their husband's name)?

I see no reason not to call someone by the pronoun they wish to be used once I'm made aware of it.

Intentionally using the pronoun someone has specifically asked NOT to be called by, when you've been informed of such, is just you being discourteous. Or exerting your "power" to control their life.