Transgender Thread.

  • Thread starter Com Fox
  • 2,194 comments
  • 129,692 views

Transgender is...?

  • Ok for anyone

    Votes: 4 57.1%
  • Ok as long as it's binary (Male to Female or vice versa)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Wrong

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No one's business except the person involved

    Votes: 3 42.9%
  • Don't care

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    7
More taught not to - and appropriately as 'they' and 'their' are for groups. It should be 'it' and 'its', though I suspect that being described as an 'it' may cause offence.

"Go and ask the person in the ticket office which seat you're in and then go to where they tell you". That's from KS2 SATs... it's perfectly normal and appropriate to use "they" and "their" for gender-uncertain personal pronouns.

"It" would clearly be inappropriate and, as you say, offensive.
 
"Go and ask the person in the ticket office which seat you're in and then go to where they tell you". That's from KS2 SATs... it's perfectly normal and appropriate to use "they" and "their" for gender-uncertain personal pronouns...
... in the third person. It wouldn't be appropriate here - it's all in the context.

Edit: Actually, no, I'm not sure it's even appropriate there - in all of the writing I've done and come across recently, 'they' is always plural or grouped and individuals (including companies) are always 'it'. Perhaps that's the reason it's in Keystage 2...



It's worth noting that more than which non-gender specific term applies here, non-binary is a catchall. Without knowing to which subset of non-binary this individual belongs, any term may be considered offensive.

Which is, of course, its own problem.
 
Last edited:
... in the third person. It wouldn't be appropriate here - it's all in the context.

Which is how @Tornado was referring to Maria Munis. There's a clear choice between "he came out to the President", "she came out to the President" and "they came out to the President". All are appropriate third-person pronouns, in this case @Tornado was referring to a person who doesn't identify as either of the first two.
 
a person who doesn't identify as either of the first two.
I've just quickly read over the two pieces in question and I cannot see anywhere that the individual in question has stated any of those things - though perhaps I missed it, as it was just quickly ('who does not identify as being either male or female' is Sky's comment, not Maria's).

Maria only states "non-binary" and non-binary includes genderfluid, bigender and pangender, along with agender/non-gender, so it's not immediately apparent whether non gender-specific pronouns are inappropriate or not - genderfluid individuals may have male moments and female moments (and neither and both) and any pronoun may be accurate or inaccurate at any given point, whether specific to a gender or not.


This is, as noted above, its own problem - and I'm not sure how productive it is to upbraid an individual for using the pronoun appropriate to his perception rather than the one appropriate to yours, as it only creates more division.


It's also worth noting that both Sky and the Gunardia avoid the grammatical minefield and refer to Maria by name or vocation throughout instead of by pronoun - except in the case of the third paragraph in the Sky piece...
 
I've just quickly read over the two pieces in question and I cannot see anywhere that the individual in question has stated any of those things - though perhaps I missed it, as it was just quickly ('who does not identify as being either male or female' is Sky's comment, not Maria's).

Maria only states "non-binary"...

Looking over the articles again; you're correct. The wording leads the reader to infer that Maria identifies as neither male nor female, literally I can see that in fact they may identify as both. On that point I still think that using the gender-uncertain "they" is the most correct approach. Horridly, it seems that The Mirror agree (a very un-Mirror article all-round, really).

In any case, I've now decided that "non-binary" is state-exclusive and therefore perjorative, "non-sexo-boolean" is the correct way forward.
 
"Go and ask the person in the ticket office which seat you're in and then go to where they tell you". That's from KS2 SATs... it's perfectly normal and appropriate to use "they" and "their" for gender-uncertain personal pronouns.

"It" would clearly be inappropriate and, as you say, offensive.
In this example, they is more than likely used because you're referring to a person you don't know and can't see. If I knew the person in the box office was a woman I would say, "and go where she tells you", not, "they tell you". In this particular example, I'd be looking at her and seeing a woman and I'd call her a her as would just about everyone else on the planet I'd assume.

Looking over the articles again; you're correct. The wording leads the reader to infer that Maria identifies as neither male nor female, literally I can see that in fact they may identify as both. On that point I still think that using the gender-uncertain "they" is the most correct approach. Horridly, it seems that The Mirror agree (a very un-Mirror article all-round, really).

In any case, I've now decided that "non-binary" is state-exclusive and therefore perjorative, "non-sexo-boolean" is the correct way forward.
If it needs this much analysis to get "correct", I can see where most people would just default to "she" or "her".
 
If it needs this much analysis to get "correct", I can see where most people would just default to "she" or "her".

....This is an interesting problem for sure - also I feel it's language specific, as I know for a fact there are gender-neutral terms used in Japanese, Korean and Chinese.

Is this an "issue" only in the so-called Western (read Christian/European) nations/cultures? Doesn't Latin also have gender-neutral terms for addressing individuals?

Hmm.
 
....This is an interesting problem for sure - also I feel it's language specific, as I know for a fact there are gender-neutral terms used in Japanese, Korean and Chinese.

Is this an "issue" only in the so-called Western (read Christian/European) nations/cultures? Doesn't Latin also have gender-neutral terms for addressing individuals?

Hmm.
Finnish is the one Western language I can think of (duh) that has no gender-specific pronouns, so that's something.
 
....This is an interesting problem for sure - also I feel it's language specific, as I know for a fact there are gender-neutral terms used in Japanese, Korean and Chinese.

Is this an "issue" only in the so-called Western (read Christian/European) nations/cultures? Doesn't Latin also have gender-neutral terms for addressing individuals?

In terms of English you can blame the Northmen (mostly sort-of Danish), we used gender specific nouning until those buggers rolled up with their shouting, and being tall, and introducing sensible laws. The most obvious modern example of our pre-Norse pronoun useage remains in German (das, die, der), this was at odds with Proto Norse and so we replaced the Middle English (seo, se, paet) with the word that became "the". He, She and The (his, her, their) (he, her, their) remained in use as third-party gender pronouns though. What's unusual about English is that we still evolved person-specific noun gender (actor, actress).

Latin does have gender-specific third-party pronouns but in a more roundabout way.

As @Carbonox notes Finnish is completely gender neutral. I guess they have sisu to carry them through :)
 
...Thanks, Professor @TenEightyOne.

Now, my head's spinning from The Information Overload... :ill:

I don't believe this is something that can be solved without coming up with a brand new word. I'll leave that up to more capable (and more driven) folks...
 
...Thanks, Professor @TenEightyOne.

Now, my head's spinning from The Information Overload... :ill:

I don't believe this is something that can be solved without coming up with a brand new word. I'll leave that up to more capable (and more driven) folks...
Even a new word is not going to make much difference until after the fact. If someone looks like a woman they are going to be addressed as a woman, if and until they proclaim they are not a woman that day or however this works and that is communicated to someone directly. And for people that aren't necessarily savvy on current cultural trends or behaviours it'll be baffling to the extreme.
 
Even a new word is not going to make much difference until after the fact. If someone looks like a woman they are going to be addressed as a woman, if and until they proclaim they are not a woman that day or however this works and that is communicated to someone directly. And for people that aren't necessarily savvy on current cultural trends or behaviours it'll be baffling to the extreme.

...Yep, that is true.

We should be honest here, though - if and when this new word does sprout from the dark ether, it'll be to help those "stuck in the weird places" more than us, I'd imagine. If it can help them, I'm all for it.

Besides, what's life without a few (cultural) challenges? If something baffles me, then hell, I'll endure it. :lol: Or google my way out of it.

Thank god for The Internetz.
 
Changing the title of the thread due to discussions about transgenders being in the Homosexuality Thread and the conversation pretty much turned into general Transgender talk anyway.
 
And there has been an anti-trans bombing at a Target. All we bloody well want to do is use the bathroom.

https://m.mic.com/articles/145804/a...w-that-we-must-keep-bathrooms-safe#.lyIMsx5hO

Aslo, just a reminder that the correct phrasing wouldn't be transgenders or transgendered, but transgender ;)

Do you have a source for the emboldened claim? Your currently-linked article (aside from a slew of speculation) simply states that nobody has any idea what the motive was.
 
Do you have a source for the emboldened claim? Your currently-linked article (aside from a slew of speculation) simply states that nobody has any idea what the motive was.

Heh, that's my bad. I wasn't brilliant in my wording. :drool:

There was a bomb placed in a Target bathroom. Given that there have been anti-trans protesters angry over Target explaining their stance on bathrooms it seems likely that the bomb was placed by an anti-trans protester, however nothing is known at this current time.

That's what the story is as of right now. We can make eduamicated guesses but honestly that's all they are right now: guesses.

The article provides some information on where the store is and stuff of that nature.

My bad for that, and thanks for calling me out 👍
 
I very strongly disagree with that article. Gender identity is very different from those other things they ask as rhectorical questions. It's incredibly hard to pin down what is actually a good definition of gender vs sex - but the rest of those things he mentions are jobs or labels given by society.

Which...Is actually the biggest issue here, AFAIK. Social identity vs self-identity.

@Ialyrn can you help me out? I'll admit I don't have a full grasp on this issue.
 
I very strongly disagree with that article. Gender identity is very different from those other things they ask as rhectorical questions. It's incredibly hard to pin down what is actually a good definition of gender vs sex - but the rest of those things he mentions are jobs or labels given by society.

Which...Is actually the biggest issue here, AFAIK. Social identity vs self-identity.

@Ialyrn can you help me out? I'll admit I don't have a full grasp on this issue.


No, his argument it legitimate when you consider the federal government views of transgendered people. Of course I expect you to sound like people who claim that polygamist didn't have an legitimate arugement on the issue of marriage.
 
No, his argument it legitimate when you consider the federal government views of transgendered people. Of course I expect you to sound like people who claim that polygamist didn't have an legitimate arugement on the issue of marriage.
What is that even supposed to mean?

If someone feels like they should have a dick between their legs, they're a guy. That's as simple as I can make gender identity.

And "Legitimate considering the government's view"?

Since when is this:

Can someone identify as a TSA agent and grope people in airports?

A legitimate argument? It isn't. Impersonating the TSA is a crime, and groping people counts as sexual assault.

Or this:

Can someone identify as a cop and seize cash from motorists?

Which, by the way, is robbery and impersonating an officer.

Those questions prove nothing as all of those are illegal or morally wrong.

There is nothing wrong with being who you want to be. Ever hear of "Be yourself"? How the hell are people going to be able to be themselves if everyone around them is as ass-backwards as you and the article?

OT:
As for polygamy - it's still legitimate, following religious beliefs. It's still practiced a lot overseas - Middle East, elsewhere. It only holds no ground in this country because it is populated by predominantly Christian people
 
Last edited:
I very strongly disagree with that article. Gender identity is very different from those other things they ask as rhectorical questions. It's incredibly hard to pin down what is actually a good definition of gender vs sex - but the rest of those things he mentions are jobs or labels given by society.

Which...Is actually the biggest issue here, AFAIK. Social identity vs self-identity.

@Ialyrn can you help me out? I'll admit I don't have a full grasp on this issue.
If you are born with a certain chromosome makeup that nature identifies as male or female and you can then choose to ignore those chromosomes and legally identify as the set you weren't born with, why is that a special case? Why is that different than saying, "I'm 42 but I feel like a senior citizen so I want to rent this apartment in this seniors only building?" Or, "I self identify as black, and appear to be black so I want the benefits of affirmative action? If I can simply ignore my genetic makeup and identify as something I'm not, that doesn't seem any bigger step than identifying as another race or age.
Why can't she be black if she wants to be black?
1294118525706842283.jpg
 
I very strongly disagree with that article. Gender identity is very different from those other things they ask as rhectorical questions. It's incredibly hard to pin down what is actually a good definition of gender vs sex - but the rest of those things he mentions are jobs or labels given by society.

Which...Is actually the biggest issue here, AFAIK. Social identity vs self-identity.

@Ialyrn can you help me out? I'll admit I don't have a full grasp on this issue.

There isn't a perfect definition of gender vs sex, however a simple starting point with the definitions is that sex is what is between your legs, while gender is your heart and your brain. There are numerous other factors that go into gender including a lot of social factors (favourite toys, colours, activities, etc) but that is sort of a broad starting point.


Also, transgendered isn't really a word. Being trans isn't really an activity. It's sorta who you are. Just trying to help with some wording :)
 
If you are born with a certain chromosome makeup that nature identifies as male or female and you can then choose to ignore those chromosomes and legally identify as the set you weren't born with, why is that a special case? Why is that different than saying, "I'm 42 but I feel like a senior citizen so I want to rent this apartment in this seniors only building?" Or, "I self identify as black, and appear to be black so I want the benefits of affirmative action? If I can simply ignore my genetic makeup and identify as something I'm not, that doesn't seem any bigger step than identifying as another race or age.
Why can't she be black if she wants to be black?
1294118525706842283.jpg
Ethnicity is a different thing than gender. Ethnicity is part of your family's lineage - for example, African Americans have roots in African people. I'll volunteer myself as an example. I am Caucasian, and my family tree goes back to Poland, Canada, Ireland, etc. Does my family roots mean anything? Only that my family lived in those countries and have been predominantly white. Somewhat - knowing where your family originates tends to help you track how the family has changed over the years, but that has a flaw. I've seen people go off about being Native American when that branch of the family is pretty distant. There was a lady up here running for Senate, Elizabeth Warren, who clained to be 1/16th Native American. It is part of her heritage - nothing special - but she was trying to use it as a sort of selling point.

As for the lady you posted - She can't identify as African American because of her family's lineage. Unless she can produce documents proving there was an African American in her family tree somewhere, it holds no ground. Heritage is a completely different thing from gender identity - one is primarily in the genes (ethnicity) and one is mental (gender).

Note: Please do not bring race into a discussion about gender. It's a can of worms best left sealed.

For the age thing:

You can feel older or younger, but legal documents such as a license, birth certificate, etc. are there to keep people from doing that - there would be a hell of a lot of legal issues surrounding sexual reproduction (Age of consent), cigarettes, alcohol, eligibility to drive, access to gentlemen's clubs, bars, nightclubs...I can't think of anything else.

Your questions are falling a bit too close to the article I previously commented against.

There isn't a perfect definition of gender vs sex, however a simple starting point with the definitions is that sex is what is between your legs, while gender is your heart and your brain. There are numerous other factors that go into gender including a lot of social factors (favourite toys, colours, activities, etc) but that is sort of a broad starting point.


Also, transgendered isn't really a word. Being trans isn't really an activity. It's sorta who you are. Just trying to help with some wording :)
I never mentioned "transgendered". I have transgender friends who would get super-pissed if I ever said that. Thanks for the clarification.
 
Ethnicity is a different thing than gender. Ethnicity is part of your family's lineage - for example, African Americans have roots in African people. I'll volunteer myself as an example. I am Caucasian, and my family tree goes back to Poland, Canada, Ireland, etc. Does my family roots mean anything? Only that my family lived in those countries and have been predominantly white. Somewhat - knowing where your family originates tends to help you track how the family has changed over the years, but that has a flaw. I've seen people go off about being Native American when that branch of the family is pretty distant. There was a lady up here running for Senate, Elizabeth Warren, who clained to be 1/16th Native American. It is part of her heritage - nothing special - but she was trying to use it as a sort of selling point.

As for the lady you posted - She can't identify as African American because of her family's lineage. Unless she can produce documents proving there was an African American in her family tree somewhere, it holds no ground. Heritage is a completely different thing from gender identity - one is primarily in the genes (ethnicity) and one is mental (gender).

Note: Please do not bring race into a discussion about gender. It's a can of worms best left sealed.

For the age thing:

You can feel older or younger, but legal documents such as a license, birth certificate, etc. are there to keep people from doing that - there would be a hell of a lot of legal issues surrounding sexual reproduction (Age of consent), cigarettes, alcohol, eligibility to drive, access to gentlemen's clubs, bars, nightclubs...I can't think of anything else.

Your questions are falling a bit too close to the article I previously commented against.


I never mentioned "transgendered". I have transgender friends who would get super-pissed if I ever said that. Thanks for the clarification.
Your sex/gender is determined by your genes, it's not "mental". The ability to alter your feelings about your gender is mental. Your race is determined by your genetic makeup as well. If I can feel my way into being a woman, why can't I feel myself into being Chinese or black? Your explanation is, "it's different", when, in fact, it's the exact same principle. Rachel Dolezal can't pretend to be black because her family doesn't have African DNA, but she can be a man if she wants to even though she doesn't have any male DNA?
 
Your sex/gender is determined by your genes, it's not "mental". The ability to alter your feelings about your gender is mental. Your race is determined by your genetic makeup as well. If I can feel my way into being a woman, why can't I feel myself into being Chinese or black? Your explanation is, "it's different", when, in fact, it's the exact same principle. Rachel Dolezal can't pretend to be black because her family doesn't have African DNA, but she can be a man if she wants to even though she doesn't have any male DNA?
Another thing is part of all of this transgender stuff is environmental and biological differences due to hormones, genetics and even brain structure. On the genetics front I have a strong case: A good friend of mine, who we will refer to as "Sarah", has an interesting situation with her body. You see, genetically speaking, she is a male. Her sex chromosomes are XY, consistent with male. But, she has fully functional female parts with no presence of male traits. Despite the freakish nature of her genetic make-up, she is a normal woman no matter how you look at it. So in that particular case, Johnny, her genes say male, her body is female. How do you classify gender by gene if there is a difference between genotype and phenotype?

Exposure to hormones in the womb can stunt development of a gender/sex or cause the opposite to form. There are also hermaphrodites - what sex do you classify those as? They have both male and female genitals in a few of those cases, although neither is properly developed. Using the person's genetic make-up is usually a decent idea to establish gender but when the environment comes jnto play, that's a moot point.
 
Another thing is part of all of this transgender stuff is environmental and biological differences due to hormones, genetics and even brain structure. On the genetics front I have a strong case: A good friend of mine, who we will refer to as "Sarah", has an interesting situation with her body. You see, genetically speaking, she is a male. Her sex chromosomes are XY, consistent with male. But, she has fully functional female parts with no presence of male traits. Despite the freakish nature of her genetic make-up, she is a normal woman no matter how you look at it. So in that particular case, Johnny, her genes say male, her body is female. How do you classify gender by gene if there is a difference between genotype and phenotype?

Exposure to hormones in the womb can stunt development of a gender/sex or cause the opposite to form. There are also hermaphrodites - what sex do you classify those as? They have both male and female genitals in a few of those cases, although neither is properly developed. Using the person's genetic make-up is usually a decent idea to establish gender but when the environment comes jnto play, that's a moot point.
Cool speech but still doesn't answer my questions. Why is it ok to identify as male or female when you don't have the genetic makeup of one, but not ok to identify as another race when you don't have the genetic makeup of that race? Simple question.
 

Latest Posts

Back