How Attached Are You To Your Gender?

[Liquor Box]

Yeah... That’s not real, how many people suffer REAL discrimination because they are CIS? Or do you think some angry arguments on an internet forum count as discrimination? Does anyone lose a job opportunity because they are CIS? Is anyone murdered in the streets for the sole reason they are CIS? Is anyone victim of harassment or persecution because they are CIS? Is anyone kicked out of their parents’ house because they are CIS? Does anyone resort to suicide because they are CIS and society want them to be trans? I don’t think so.

Well, as to angry arguments on the internet, would it be ok for a cis person to say that gender identity does not exist at all? If not, then what Extinguisher said is not ok either. If so, well I guess that's a consistent perspective from you.

As to what you call "REAL discrimination" such as murder, harrasment or persecution. I imagine very few (if any) cis people suffer that because they are cis. But that is not what the preceding discussion was about. If you want discuss that sort of thing, that's fine (although we may find that we simply agree, so there's nothing to discuss), but please don't change the goal posts by suggesting that it is an answer to the earlier discussion.

You are right, someone can’t be blamed for something they didn’t know, NOW you know that referring to biological sex when you we are talking about gender around here is offensive to some people, so can you quit doing it?

You've missed here in a couple of ways.

First, still there does not appear to be an outcry that it is offensive - Jormengard even critiqued the post where I pointed out that nobody had claimed it was offensive, and objected to spelling and other such, but didn;t suggest i was wrong to assume such terms were inoffensive.

Second, as I already said, I don't think the mere fact that a one or a few people find a word offensive means I should stop using it. First I should consider whether that offence is reasonable. If I told you that I found a particular word offensive would you immediately cease using it, or would you assess whether my offence was reasonable first?

Third, I actually haven';t used the word "gender" to refer to biological sex at all in this thread - so I have already 'stopeed' doing it. Admittedly that was more for clarity than to to avoid offence though.

I have been asked this question a couple of times now - I think I will just cut and paste this answer next time.

But you just said you are not overly attached to the word "gender" as a synonym for sex, so what’s the deal?

No, I'm not - but that is a matter of language. The post you quoted is a matter of whether the concept of biological sex matters at all (or in fact whether it exists). Also, it doesn't matter so much about how I identify with my biological sex, it is clear from this thread that many people do so identify closely.

Let's try to see this with a Fantasy hypothetical situation, let’s say you live in a fantasy word and your family has access to a magical staff that controls the weather.

For generations you and your family have used this staff to control the weather for your city.

A group of refugees appears in the city and they claim that every time you use the staff you cause a tsunami in their city, killing and hurting millions.

You have two options.

Dismiss what they say as silly superstition and keep using the staff, after all your family and ancestors have been using it this way for generations.

Stop using the staff since it may be causing pain and suffering to other humans in a region you don’t belong and don’t go to.

You have the power to choose.

Assuming the tsunami caused more harm (such as loss of life) than the adverse weather would cause in my home city, I would probably stop using the staff. Which is pretty consistent with what I have been saying about the use of words (see above about assessing reasonableness, nobody actually having said the word "gender" is causing them harm, and the fact that I have not at all used gender in the way you suggest.

I wonder if the reason you are missing so often here is because you are not actually reading my posts, just skimming and getting a vague impression?

[AMFV]

Hello.

I am genuinely confused. Example: Some of your other posts indicate that you've had to "come out" as cisgender. I'm not sure how that would occur, as cisgender people so outnumber transgender people as to effectively be the socio-cultural expectation.

Not quite, or at least that wasn't the impression I was trying to give. I think what exactly was said is that I had to kind of figure out what my gender identity meant in a similar way to the way that the trans folks were describing. Although that was a post from several days so I'm not sure if that was exactly my phrasing, but that was the intent.

The idea that other cisgender people would discriminate against you because you are cisgender seems really strange because of that.

Well you have to remember that "cisgender people" isn't a huge block of people, it's a huge of block of different diverse groups, with different mores and different norms. So it's entirely possible for one group to act in a way that's prejudicial of another group. And somewhat trickier because the different groups may not realize in full that the other groups exist.

In my case it was one group that had a different idea about how masculinity played in society against another group with a different idea. Particularly in groups of college students, I noticed that there was a very different representation of masculine ideals than I was used to, and I was pretty shocked by the negative reactions I got, and the eventual pushing away I received.

I recall you mention this centers around how you express your gender? Could that be a cause for you to differ from the expected "norm" and thus be a target for discrimination?

I am genuinely interested in further elaboration.

Well for example, if you compare my responses to the majority of those earlier in the thread, I felt that my masculine identity was a very fundamental part of who I was, which was not a common state. And that tended to be frowned on, particularly by certain social groups. I've went into this in some more detail earlier. But my preferences and discussion of potential dating partners resulted in a very negative reaction and eventually resulted in me being ostracized or at least pushed to the fringes of many groups of what was at the time my peers. It was very isolating.

For example, I might have said something that was to the effect that I liked to pay for my dates when I took them out (I do actually prefer that), and I was basically told that was about the worst thing that a human being could do, and that what was for me a courtesy and a preference was a sign that I was somehow a terrible sexist and that my form of masculinity was causing all sorts of societal problems.

Or when I would frame discussions of how I was thinking in terms of my masculinity, people were shocked that would be a factor in my decision-making process. And as I said, they started to spend less and less time around me and isolated me for that particular expression of my gender identity. There was no real violence or anything, just being pushed out of groups, but that was very troubling to me, particularly given that I was dealing with other issues at the time, and I wound up drinking heavily and feeling very isolated.

So while it may not be as much as the worst oppressed of the trans folk have suffered, it was certainly not "nothing" or "marginal" and it certainly had a lot to do with gender identity. I could probably talk more about it, but I've had to repeat this bit quite a bit and it's somewhat tiring to do so, and frustrating that it seems like very few people are interested in it beyond a slight glance.

[Bohandas]

The issue I take is that people seem to be arguing for a definition of manhood and womanhood based not on how the words are used and understood, but rather an appeal to emotion (definition x makes people happy and definition y makes people unhappy, therefore definition x is the correct and accurate definition) and to a lesser extent a reversed argumentum ad baculum (this group has been persecuted in the past, therefore they are right), and a conflation of should with is (this is what should be, therefore it is what is)

[Jormengand]

The issue I take is that people seem to be arguing for a definition of manhood and womanhood based not on how the words are used and understood, but rather an appeal to emotion (definition x makes people happy and definition y makes people unhappy, therefore definition x is the correct and accurate definition) and to a lesser extent a reversed argumentum ad baculum (this group has been persecuted in the past, therefore they are right), and a conflation of should with is (this is what should be, therefore it is what is)

Well if it seems that way to you, then you're under a very grave misapprehension. People have been using man and woman to refer to genders for years, because it's easier and more convenient. Plus, language changes to fit human needs, so there's no reason why we shouldn't use language in the somewhat linguistic pragmatist way which entails that we should use language in ways which actually says something about who a person is, which is far more useful in most cases than knowing what they're like in bed, even if that were what people were trying to argue.

[Razade]

The "listen and believe" crowd refusing to do either lol.

That saying alone, from anyone, should give you chills and immediately set you against that person.

[Liquor Box]

Well if it seems that way to you, then you're under a very grave misapprehension. People have been using man and woman to refer to genders for years, because it's easier and more convenient. Plus, language changes to fit human needs, so there's no reason why we shouldn't use language in the somewhat linguistic pragmatist way which entails that we should use language in ways which actually says something about who a person is, which is far more useful in most cases than knowing what they're like in bed, even if that were what people were trying to argue.

But given that the words "man" and "woman" are usually understood by most people (and are specified by most dictionary definitions) to be primarily a reference to biological sex, why not use a different word to refer to gender identity? Whether it be trans-man/woman, or "identifies as a woman" or something entirely different?

It seems to me that it would easier to come up with a new word which may slowly become accepted into parlance (like terms such as pan-sexual) than to tell people that the widely accepted meaning of a particular word (like "woman") should be to changed. That also has the practical advantage of avoiding the term referring to two different things (which causes confusion). Or worse, leaving a language gap which the appropriated word used to fill (if "women" came to mean a person who identifies as female, then there would no longer be a word for a person who is biologically female).

[Shamash]

I wonder if the reason you are missing so often here is because you are not actually reading my posts, just skimming and getting a vague impression?

That's true, I may have done that, I do that a lot, it's a bad habit.

My apologies.

[Jormengand]

But given that the words "man" and "woman" are usually understood by most people (and are specified by most dictionary definitions) to be primarily a reference to biological sex

So, "Given something which is profoundly false".

why not use a different word to refer to gender identity? Whether it be trans-man/woman, or "identifies as a woman" or something entirely different?

We've been over why "Identifies as X" is a harmful way of saying it.

It seems to me that it would easier to come up with a new word which may slowly become accepted into parlance (like terms such as pan-sexual) than to tell people that the widely accepted meaning of a particular word (like "woman") should be to changed.

I again don't see anyone apart from the deliberately obtuse who seriously puts much thought into insisting that man and woman are sex terms and not gender terms. No-one who isn't trying to armchair-philosophise has a serious issue with calling a trans woman a woman.

That also has the practical advantage of avoiding the term referring to two different things (which causes confusion). Or worse, leaving a language gap which the appropriated word used to fill (if "women" came to mean a person who identifies as female, then there would no longer be a word for a person who is biologically female).

We don't really need a word for "Person who is biologically female" very often; it's rarely a very useful category to talk about.

[Shamash]

But given that the words "man" and "woman" are usually understood by most people (and are specified by most dictionary definitions) to be primarily a reference to biological sex(...)

Is it?

noun, plural men.
1.
an adult male person, as distinguished from a boy or a woman.
2.
a member of the species Homo sapiens or all the members of this species collectively, without regard to sex:
prehistoric man.
3.
the human individual as representing the species, without reference to sex; the human race; humankind:
Man hopes for peace, but prepares for war.

I don't see anything about biological sex.

[Liquor Box]

That's true, I may have done that, I do that a lot, it's a very bad habit.

My apologies.




Is it?

noun, plural men.
1.
an adult male person, as distinguished from a boy or a woman.
2.
a member of the species Homo sapiens or all the members of this species collectively, without regard to sex:
prehistoric man.
3.
the human individual as representing the species, without reference to sex; the human race; humankind:
Man hopes for peace, but prepares for war.

I don't see anything about biological sex.

The first listed definition defines a "man" as a "male", then if you follow through to the definition of "male" you get "an individual of the sex that is typically capable of producing small, usually motile gametes (such as sperm or spermatozoa) which fertilize the eggs of a female" (that's the Merriam Websters definition, but the others I loked at seemed similar). Being able to fertilize an egg is something exclusive to biological males, and y extension the dictionary definition of "man" you posted referred to biological males.

[Jormengand]

The first listed definition defines a "man" as a "male", then if you follow through to the definition of "male" you get "an individual of the sex that is typically capable of producing small, usually motile gametes (such as sperm or spermatozoa) which fertilize the eggs of a female" (that's the Merriam Websters definition, but the others I loked at seemed similar). Being able to fertilize an egg is something exclusive to biological males, and y extension the dictionary definition of "man" you posted referred to biological males.

You're trying to use the dictionary definition of a disputed word as an argument and I don't think it's going to work the way you think it will. Dictionaries aren't actually authorities on language, you know. They're designed to help people understand what a word means in general terms, not to settle debates about what a word should or does mean.

[warty goblin]

People aren't choosing who they are, only describing it. It's like how someone who identifies as bisexual does so because they're attracted to two genders.

This is something I do have to remind myself of. Something about the construction 'identifies as ___' makes it sound like a choice. I'm not saying it is - I certainly wouldn't say I chose to be a straight man and I don't think other people choose their gender or sexual orientation any more than I did* - it's simply something in the phrase makes it come off that way, at least to me. Maybe this is a regional language thing?


*Excepting, of course, the people who say they do choose these things to some extent. I can definitely say I never did, and I strongly suspect that most other people don't either.

On a slightly different note, I would say that there are lot of relatively stereotypically masculine things that I strongly enjoy doing. Fixing things, setting other things on fire, being useful because of being larger and stronger, fairly masculine modes of dress. This coming week I'm going to help my Dad slaughter a hog, which is a remarkably satisfying job - although given my sister did it for years maybe not an enormously masculine one. I don't think these make me superior, or are superior to more feminine things, but they certainly work better for me. On the other hand I also like making pretty or beautiful things (or trying at least), and have a definite fondness for flowers, which isn't generally thought of as masculine in the current climate, though I'm not sure how many of them are thought of as feminine either.

I can't say this has ever gotten me any substantial amount of crap from anybody, either people who think I'm too rooted in traditional masculinity, or people who don't think I'm masculine enough. I suppose it might have been an issue in college, since I went to a place so liberal I was distinctly more conservative than most of the student body, but I didn't really talk to anybody in college or leave my room more than required, so it's not like anybody had the chance. Maybe the bits of masculinity that resonate most strongly with me are entirely non-controversial, and it's not like I parade my affection for roses on the street. The collection of carved roses on my bookshelf does kind of give it away, but like 6 people ever have actually been in my apartment.

[Liquor Box]

So, "Given something which is profoundly false".

Well, as I just pointed out to Shamesh, it is certainly not profoundly false (or false at all) with regard to the dictionary definition. Do you have any reference or source for the general understanding of the word "man" being a reference to gender identity, and not biological sex? The wikipedia page on "man" refers to a range of biological characteristics, and does not appear to refer to identity at all.

We've been over why "Identifies as X" is a harmful way of saying it.

Not in discussion with me you haven't. If you have with someone else, perhaps you can refer me to the page (or even better the post).

I again don't see anyone apart from the deliberately obtuse who seriously puts much thought into insisting that man and woman are sex terms and not gender terms. No-one who isn't trying to armchair-philosophise has a serious issue with calling a trans woman a woman.

Well, that's because you are assuming that everyone who disagrees with you is deliberately obtuse.

I'm not sure there are many people who are hellbent on labelling transgendered person by their biological sex. The reason it is important to have words for both, is simply about communication.

For example, if there was a thread in the OOTS subforum inviting speculation as to whether V is a man or a woman. Half the people would answer on the basis that the inquiry was about his/her gender identity and half (actualy more than half) would answer on the basis that the inquiry was about his/her biological sex Having distinct terms is useful for clarity.

We don't really need a word for "Person who is biologically female" very often; it's rarely a very useful category to talk about.

Even though a person's biological sex is not important to you, and you may not want to talk about it often, are you open minded enough to accept that it might be important to other people and they might want to talk about it?

[Liquor Box]

You're trying to use the dictionary definition of a disputed word as an argument and I don't think it's going to work the way you think it will. Dictionaries aren't actually authorities on language, you know. They're designed to help people understand what a word means in general terms, not to settle debates about what a word should or does mean.

Actually dictionaries are authorities on language. They are not the be all and end all (common usage trumps dictionary, and usage in particular context trumps common usage) but they are still useful when we disagree on common usage or usage in context. They are certainly more useful in understanding language than the history of the words in question, which you have taken it upon yourself to lecture on on a couple of occasions.

[Shamash]

Even though a person's biological sex is not important to you, and you may not want to talk about it often, are you open minded enough to accept that it might be important to other people and they might want to talk about it?

Can't the person whose biological sex is important, just call it gender? Like that way she or he can talk about it and not be rude against trans people.

Like a woman whose biological sex is female, can't she just say "Being female is important to me"?

[Liquor Box]

Can't the person whose biological sex is important, just call it gender? Like that way she or he can talk about it and not be rude against trans people.

Like a woman whose biological sex is female, can't she just say "Being female is important to me"?

I may have misunderstood you Shamesh, but isn't using word like gender to refer to biological sex and "female" to refer to someone who is biologically a woman exactly the kind of thing we are discussing, and the kind of thing Jormengard is objecting to?

[Shamash]

I may have misunderstood you Shamesh, but isn't using word like gender to refer to biological sex and "female" to refer to someone who is biologically a woman exactly the kind of thing we are discussing, and the kind of thing Jormengard is objecting to?

I don't think so, I think Jormengand is objecting the use of biological sex as the sole definer of your gender.

[Jormengand]

Well, as I just pointed out to Shamesh, it is certainly not profoundly false (or false at all) with regard to the dictionary definition. Do you have any reference or source for the general understanding of the word "man" being a reference to gender identity, and not biological sex? The wikipedia page on "man" refers to a range of biological characteristics, and does not appear to refer to identity at all.

No, I don't have a source on people in my experience of people being people doing something. Sorry.

Not in discussion with me you haven't. If you have with someone else, perhaps you can refer me to the page (or even better the post).

One hundred and eighty one and one hundred and ninety one. It was quite an interesting discussion which the extinguisher and I had with, uhm, you.

Well, that's because you are assuming that everyone who disagrees with you is deliberately obtuse.

No. No it isn't. It's because there's no reason to call trans people by their sex in general conversation outside of deliberate obtuseness.

I'm not sure there are many people who are hellbent on labelling transgendered person by their biological sex.

Oh trust me, there are. This isn't the first or the second or the seventh time I've had this conversation.

The reason it is important to have words for both, is simply about communication.

For example, if there was a thread in the OOTS subforum inviting speculation as to whether V is a man or a woman. Half the people would answer on the basis that the inquiry was about his/her gender identity and half (actualy more than half) would answer on the basis that the inquiry was about his/her biological sex Having distinct terms is useful for clarity.

This doesn't mean that we shouldn't use man and woman to mean man and woman rather than AMAB person and AFAB person, though. More to the point, I've never seen so many people argue so vigourously about a minor point of linguistic disambiguation, so I don't honestly believe that people's motives, in most instances, actually lie in the clarity of language. In fact, opposing the way that trans people (and credible cis people) use language is what creates this double paradigm where one group of people means one thing and another means another: by resisting the fact that language is changing naturally to become more useful you create more ambiguity than you prevent.

Even though a person's biological sex is not important to you, and you may not want to talk about it often, are you open minded enough to accept that it might be important to other people and they might want to talk about it?

You can talk about it, yes, but you don't need to insist that man and woman are the words to use for it and anyone who uses them otherwise is wrong.

Actually dictionaries are authorities on language.

They aren't. No-one is an authority on language because that literally makes no sense. If a dictionary was published which had incorrect definitions, no-one would follow it.

[The Extinguisher]

Even though a person's biological sex is not important to you, and you may not want to talk about it often, are you open minded enough to accept that it might be important to other people and they might want to talk about it?

When you say "biological sex is important and I want to talk about it" what you are actually saying is "I want to misgender you because you're not really what you say you are"

(Not you specifically but a more general you)

Insisting people not use biological sex isn't intolerant towards cis people. They don't get hurt talking about gender cause they have that. But it is intolerant of transphobes who want to misgender me and I am perfectly fine with that.

[Shamash]

When you say "biological sex is important and I want to talk about it" what you are actually saying is "I want to misgender you because you're not really what you say you are"

(Not you specifically but a more general you)

Insisting people not use biological sex isn't intolerant towards cis people. They don't get hurt talking about gender cause they have that. But it is intolerant of transphobes who want to misgender me and I am perfectly fine with that.

If I got it correctly I believe Liquor Box thought that we were arguing that CIS people should not use the world gender AT ALL.

And that's crazy we want more rights to Trans people not less rights to CIS people.

[Liquor Box]

No, I don't have a source on people in my experience of people being people doing something. Sorry.

No need to apologise. If you don't have a source, you don't have a source.

Given that you are relying on your own anecdotal experiences of how people in general use words like "man", can you accept that your experience may be skewed because you disproportionately associate with people who take an interest in the meaning given to the word? In other words, what trans people perceive "male" to mean may be very different from what the general population as a whole understand the word to mean.

We could ask people from the first page of this thread (before the contention kicked off) whether they consider themselves a man/woman because that is their biological sex, of because they identify as a man or woman seperately to their biological sex. The sample size is too small to be decisive, but it may give us further information on what meaning those terms are usually assigned.

One hundred and eighty one and one hundred and ninety one. It was quite an interesting discussion which the extinguisher and I had with, uhm, you.

Well I addressed 181 (191 wasn't addressed to me) - the argument is circular. Extinguisher said it is harmful to use male to mean biologically male because that would imply that people who aren't biologically male are not male. But if male means biologically male (as the dictionary and common usage suggests) then that meaning is correct.

No. No it isn't. It's because there's no reason to call trans people by their sex in general conversation outside of deliberate obtuseness.

But terms like male and female are not only applied to trans people. Most cis people refer to themselves as male or female because that is their biological sex, its just that they do not have a seperate gender identity.

Also there are contexts where people ask about biological sex in contexts where they are clearly not trying tobe obtuse. Various application forms ask for a person's sex (and the term sex implies they are asking about biological sex, not gender identity). Surely you are not suggesting that they are all doing so just to be obtuse?

Oh trust me, there are. This isn't the first or the second or the seventh time I've had this conversation.

Given your perception of everyone who disagrees with you on the last point as being obtuse, I wonder if you are perceiving attacks on trans-gendered people when they aren't there (which is not to deny that there sometimes are attacks on trans people).

This doesn't mean that we shouldn't use man and woman to mean man and woman rather than AMAB person and AFAB person, though. More to the point, I've never seen so many people argue so vigourously about a minor point of linguistic disambiguation, so I don't honestly believe that people's motives, in most instances, actually lie in the clarity of language. .

Ah, yes, my point above does apply. Where people argue that the definition of a word that is applied by most people in common usage and is also the dictionary definition, you disbelieve their motives. Surely there enough actual prejudice toward trans people that you do not have to imagine it where it doesn't exist?

In fact, opposing the way that trans people (and credible cis people) use language is what creates this double paradigm where one group of people means one thing and another means another: by resisting the fact that language is changing naturally to become more useful you create more ambiguity than you prevent

This could easily be stated the opposite way. By opposing the way that most people (trans or not) use language creates the paradigm.

The question is which use of the language should cede to the other. My view is that surely the most widely accepted meaning (which is reflected by the dictionary definition) should hold sway, with new language used to address topics that it doesn't properly address. Do you have a good reason to suggest otherwise?

You can talk about it, yes, but you don't need to insist that man and woman are the words to use for it and anyone who uses them otherwise is wrong.

Great, and people do talk about it all the time. But without using man and woman to mean man and woman (as the dictionary defines them) then there is no word to use.

They aren't. No-one is an authority on language because that literally makes no sense. If a dictionary was published which had incorrect definitions, no-one would follow it.

The dictionary is an authority, but not the ultimate authority, which is why I said that it is subject to common usage (which also suggests that man means bioloigcal man etc)

[Razade]

The dictionary is an authority, but not the ultimate authority, which is why I said that it is subject to common usage (which also suggests that man means bioloigcal man etc)

Dictionaries are not an authority on anything. They're a lexicon compiling the usages of words. Words don't have definitions, they are labels with usages. That's how words are taken out of, and added to, a Dictionary. It just works to put common usages in one place. Not say what words are.

Regardless, saying a word is correct because it's in a Dictionary and then demanding the Dictionary is an authority is a fallacy.

[Bohandas]

They aren't. No-one is an authority on language because that literally makes no sense. If a dictionary was published which had incorrect definitions, no-one would follow it.

Exactly.no one is an authority, and no one has the jurisdiction to change it (nor to elevate an obscure technical social science meaning to the status of primary meaning), no matter how many people would stop being miserable. Even if changing it would bring about world peace there would still be nobody with legitimate authority to change it.

And, going back to previous comments, yes, gender has usually been part of manhood or womanhood, but it has always held a non-controlling share, so to speak. Sex has always held the majority stake in the matter.

Also, before anyone gets me wrong, I side with trans people on pretty much every policy issue, just not for the same reasons. That ridiculous bathroom law, for instance, constitutes sex-based discrimination and is thus both immoral and a waste of government resources and I'll have no part of it (in fact, I would go as far as to propose the opposite law and abolish all enforcement regardless of how one identifies) and the same goes for just about* every other anti-trans regulation ever proposed.

*(The few remaining proposals essentially constitute criminalization of bad grammer which is a violation of free speech and even worse).

[2D8HP]

Oh by sweet Lolth!



The word for biological sex is "sex".

The word for linguistic "female", "male", and "neuter" tenses (as in Latin and German), is "gender" (in High School during the 1980's I was taught that "Words have a gender, people are a sex), but cultural anthropologists in the 1950's grabbed "gender" to be a useful word to indicate someone's societal role as a women or man distinct from their physical sex, and that's what "gender" means now.

The OP can restate, but I believe that the thread topic is along the lines of "How important is acting as a women or man is to you".

Even though I didn't yet have the vocabulary for it, I learned as a teenager the difference by having an adult tell me "I'm a women", who was born physically male, it was obviously important enough to the adult that they wanted to make it clear.

I then thought of adults who insisted that they were "kids at heart" and teenagers who insisted that "I'm already grown", or to put it another way I'm sure many of you have encountered people who were physically born in another country that want you to know that they feel American.

For example, this thread got on a tangent about the military, and I have three co-workers who were born outside of the U.S.A. who served in the U.S. Navy, and if you tell any of them that they're not Americans expect to get slapped at the very least.

This is not that hard.

Clear?

[Liquor Box]

Dictionaries are not an authority on anything. They're a lexicon compiling the usages of words. Words don't have definitions, they are labels with usages. That's how words are taken out of, and added to, a Dictionary. It just works to put common usages in one place. Not say what words are.

Regardless, saying a word is correct because it's in a Dictionary and then demanding the Dictionary is an authority is a fallacy.

That's an interesting conception on what words mean. It is not one that the courts accept (they do refer to the dictionary definition of words when interpreting them). However, it probably doesn't matter here - so probably not with sidetracking further.

Even if you were right, and dictionaries were merely "a lexicon for compiling the usages of words", then the fact that the dictionary defines a certain word a certain way suggests that that is the common usage of that word. The dictionary would be a stronger indicator of common usage than the anecdotal perception of one person (Jormengard, or myself for that matter).

[Razade]

That's an interesting conception on what words mean.

And by interesting conception you mean to say a Discriptivist view on linguistics?

It is not one that the courts accept (they do refer to the dictionary definition of words when interpreting them). However, it probably doesn't matter here - so probably not with sidetracking further.

They...don't...Courts use legal language, in which the words they use have a very definite usage. Often times not agreeing with a dictionary.

Even if you were right, and dictionaries were merely "a lexicon for compiling the usages of words"

Which I am. Because that's what they are. Hell, it's even the dictionary definition of dictionary. So...no matter how you want to look at it, you are just factually wrong.

a book or electronic resource that lists the words of a language (typically in alphabetical order) and gives their meaning, or gives the equivalent words in a different language, often also providing information about pronunciation, origin, and usage.

I believe in the world of discussion this is what we call a Slam Dunk. Either you disagree with me and invalidate your argument or you agree with me and invalidate your argument.

Gotta say. Love that feeling.

then the fact that the dictionary defines a certain word a certain way suggests that that is the common usage of that word.

Dictionaries do not define words. They list definitions of words. Dictionaries have no agency or language of their own and are thus incapable of defining anything. Also because words do not have definitions. They have usages.

The dictionary would be a stronger indicator of common usage than the anecdotal perception of one person (Jormengard, or myself for that matter).

Dictionaries list common usage. We don't disagree with that. That doesn't make them authorities.

[Liquor Box]

When you say "biological sex is important and I want to talk about it" what you are actually saying is "I want to misgender you because you're not really what you say you are"

(Not you specifically but a more general you)

Insisting people not use biological sex isn't intolerant towards cis people. They don't get hurt talking about gender cause they have that. But it is intolerant of transphobes who want to misgender me and I am perfectly fine with that.

Shamash said: If I got it correctly I believe Liquor Box thought that we were arguing that CIS people should not use the world gender AT ALL.

And that's crazy we want more rights to Trans people not less rights to CIS people.

I think Shamash's post accurately reflects what I am saying. He may have hit the nail on the head about why we have not been understanding each other very well.

The overwhelming majority of the time when I use terms like "male/female" or "man/woman" I am referring to a cis-person. When I refer to a cis-person as a man, what I mean is that he is biologically male (although his gender identity, to the extent he has one, is also as a male). I imagine that is true for the overwhelming majority of people who are not trans.

When I refer to a man (using the dictionary definition) I am not intending to misgender you Extinguisher, nor do I believe that that is what my words objectively mean. If it makes you feel misgendered, that is a shame.

If you are someone who thinks that gender identity is what matters and biological sex does not matter (or does not exist, to use your words), why does it bother you if someone refers to themselves (or even to you) a a man, meaning biologically male? Surely you can just dismiss that as an irrelevance to who you are? Because what you seem to be doing is asking most of the English speaking population to change the meanings they assign to several common words (even when they are not used in reference to you) so that they do not emphasise biological sex, something you would prefer to minimise.

Also, I don't think you can categorically say that de-emphasising biological sex does not hurt anyone. It may not hurt all cis-gendered people sure, but it dismissing it may be hurtful to some (and some non-cis as well - I didn;t suggest your intolerance would only hurt cis people).

[The Extinguisher]

When I refer to a man (using the dictionary definition) I am not intending to misgender you Extinguisher

And yet you continue to do so with such frequency and disregard for what I am saying that I can no longer entertain what little doubt I had that you were just woefully unaware of what you were doing.

You have repeatedly shown to value these imaginary people who so hurt over not being able to misgender people over the actual trans people you are misgendering. And make no mistake. When you say your definition of a man is someone who is "biologically male" you are misgendering me and every other trans person who was assigned male at birth.

Sure I can't stop you from using whatever words you want, but I can call it out for what it is. Blatant transphobia.

[AMFV]

And yet you continue to do so with such frequency and disregard for what I am saying that I can no longer entertain what little doubt I had that you were just woefully unaware of what you were doing.

You have repeatedly shown to value these imaginary people who so hurt over not being able to misgender people over the actual trans people you are misgendering. And make no mistake. When you say your definition of a man is someone who is "biologically male" you are misgendering me and every other trans person who was assigned male at birth.

Sure I can't stop you from using whatever words you want, but I can call it out for what it is. Blatant transphobia.

I'm not sure that using the word "man" or "male" to refer to biological sex is transphobic in any real way. There are lots of cases where biology actually is pretty significant. We've touched on at least one of them, for example in medical situations, in medical science, in terms of dating... and I know that in dating we've talked about attraction, but that isn't all there is, there's a lot more than that. For example, let's say I want a partner that I can produce children with, that's not an uncommon thing to want, in which case, then biological gender becomes critically important since that is the determinant factor in that (as well as the ability to produce children).

Now certainly there is room for clarity, one can say "biologically male" or clarify if there is any question or argument regarding the subject or if it is a situation where biological genders plays a role. Because the issue is very touchy and complex it's important to strive for maximal clarity and kindness, but that doesn't mean that biological gender ceases to exist or doesn't play a role in any sort of discussion, because there are discussions where it matters.

Hell, if you're talking legal protections for trans people then you need to be able to talk about how biological sex might differ from gender presentation and actual gender, so even in that context you would have to give some attentions to biological sex. What you're suggesting is to ignore something completely that shouldn't be ignored, particularly in the fields of medical science.

Or for example, in sporting events, where biological sex definitely plays a factor, somebody who is male biologically will have a different bone structure and different musculature, somebody who is taking hormones to correct being male or female will perform differently. So that's another arena where discussion of biological sex may be important as long as we are to have a fair playing field. Or at least a level one.

In any case, I think that it is entirely possible to have discussions about biological sex without any ill-will towards transpeople, and frankly I think that at that point you may be taking more offense than is being given, since again you're trying to argue against any discussion of biological sex, which renders a lot of discussion vague and moot. Hell, it would make the whole first two pages of this thread pointless, and those were actually kind-of informative and interesting before a bunch of dogmatists on both sides decided that a debate was better than a discussion.

[Liquor Box]

They...don't...Courts use legal language, in which the words they use have a very definite usage. Often times not agreeing with a dictionary.

They do indeed. What country are you from? I will find a case from that country (assuming it is English speaking) where the court has referenced a dictionary definition when determining the meaning of a word.

There are a few words that have a particular legal meaning that differs from their dictionary meaning. Funnily enough there are legal dictionaries which set those out - again I can find a court case referring to a definition in a legal dictionary if you like.

You are right that sometimes the court will choose a definition other than the dictionary definition. That is because common usage (and beyond that particular usage in context) trumps the dictionary definition, as I said several posts ago.

Which I am. Because that's what they are. Hell, it's even the dictionary definition of dictionary. So...no matter how you want to look at it, you are just factually wrong.

[I]"a book or electronic resource that lists the words of a language (typically in alphabetical order) and gives their meaning, or gives the equivalent words in a different language, often also providing information about pronunciation, origin, and usage.["/I]

I believe in the world of discussion this is what we call a Slam Dunk. Either you disagree with me and invalidate your argument or you agree with me and invalidate your argument.

Unfortunately, aggressively labelling something a slam dunk does not make it so. You see the bolded part of the definition of dictionary that you just quoted to to me - it says that the dictionary gives the word's meaning. That is more consistent with my conception of dictionaries than with yours.

Gotta say. Love that feeling.

lol

Dictionaries do not define words. They list definitions of words. Dictionaries have no agency or language of their own and are thus incapable of defining anything. Also because words do not have definitions. They have usages.

The distinction between defining words and listing the definition of words is meaningless in this context.