Halls of Shrewd'm / An Open Letter
No. of Recommendations: 1
Dear people coining terms for that which cannot be captured in words,
If a biological female identifies as a male, dresses in traditional women's clothes and likes to "cuddle" with men, are they/ is (s)he gay or straight?
For mathematically inclined, if person P has
Sex = F
Gender identity = M
Gender expression = F*
Sexual orientation = attracted to M
then
Is P L, G or S?
No. of Recommendations: 4
you could always ask the person
No. of Recommendations: 1
you could always ask the person
Why? Shouldn't these four attributes define what they are? Or does the word gay mean straight and straight mean lesbian and it's a matter of personal choice?
And if that's true then why even have words for sexual orientation?
In this case the unknown variable was sexual orientation, but it could have equally been gender identity or gender equation. Biological sex I am still assuming is physical reality (even for hermaphrodites etc) and not subject to the person's choice. (Maybe doctor's and parents').
No. of Recommendations: 0
Sorry, gender expression, not gender equation.
My overall point is that defining axes for aspects of sexuality makes no sense.
Just to clarify this is not to justify trans-phobia or discrimination.
It's logical and consistent to call a biological male a man and female a woman. Anything else leads to avoidable confusion. Trans women are men who identify/express as women. They are still not the same women.
No. of Recommendations: 8
I'm still a bit confused. How/why is this causing you issues in your personal life? Are you struggling to comply with someone's desire to be called something other than what is obvious? Or is this just hypothetical and you're upset because the way you saw the world is changing and you don't like it?
I know people who could possibly fit into these "categories", as you've expressed them (or as others have, i suppose), and no distress has been added to my life. It's easy enough to find out how they'd like to be addressed and then simply do that.
Isn't it?
No. of Recommendations: 3
are they/ is (s)he gay or straight?
That isn't a relevant question, because you're using an either/or set of options to apply to a situation that is increasingly recognized as far more complex, individual, and uncompartmentalizable.
Such a person is considered gender fluid, and where they stand on the spectrum is a combination of how they experience themselves overall and specific circumstances or experiences.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Or is this just hypothetical and you're upset because the way you saw the world is changing and you don't like it?
This. And you should not like it either. Change is not always for the better and I want honest and fair people to acknowledge that. Those with agenda (left or right) can go to the wall.
If you go along with the forced acceptance of trans "women" (biological males) as being fully equal to women, recognize that you will need a minimum of 64 words to describe a person, instead of four - man, woman, gay, straight.
64 because the person has a tuple (biological sex, gender expression, gender identity) and may be sexually attracted to another person with a (biological sex, gender expression, gender identity).
And this is a simplification because what I am representing as a binary choice for each variable in the tuple is actually a bimodal distribution with some/many people falling in between 100% male/female/gay/straight. It's not practical and defies common sense to impose 64 categories.
All societies in all ages ("primitive" or "civilized") have recognized at least a third category besides biological males and females who identify and express as such, and sometimes more. But also had the common sense to not commingle the categories. Only the modern West seems hellbent on drowning out nature. It's irrational and wrong.
No. of Recommendations: 11
It's not practical and defies common sense to impose 64 categories.
I'm trying to come up with a situation where it's imperative that I recognize all 64 categories. My experience has been that if I'm not a complete dishrag, common courtesy allows me to move through the world with a minimum of fuss and bother. I start out trying to NOT label someone and simply interact with them as if they were another human.
Change is not always for the better and I want honest and fair people to acknowledge that.
It might not be "better" for you, but I suspect it's quite a bit better for a lot of people who have regularly felt mislabeled and/or marginalized.
No. of Recommendations: 6
Change is not always for the better and I want honest and fair people to acknowledge that. .... If you go along with the forced acceptance of trans "women" (biological males) as being fully equal to women, recognize that you will need....
First of all....truly honest and fair people recognize that gender identity, sexuality, etc do not occupy just a few rigid categories. As we learn more through scientific research and through the kind of acceptance (in some areas) that enables many more people to be honest with themselves and with others, it has become clear that there are multiple expressions and combination. Your insistence on imposing distributions and variants and categories is a false goal with no value whatsoever.
Second of all....you're hammering away at people born with male genitals and characteristics who transition to female. This is what emotionally gets under your thin skin. You've never once voiced any objection to people born with female genitals and characteristics who transition to male. Have you!
And third....look at the incredible gene-based variability that exists among human mammals: skin tones, hair color, eye color, height, intelligence, and on and on. Your insistence that this issue is defined by "the forced acceptance of trans "women" (biological males) as being fully equal to women" reflects your prejudices and inability to acknowledge real reality. You say that: "Those with agenda (left or right) can go to the wall." But you are the one with an agenda.....I assume because the reality makes you highly uncomfortable.
Please accept people on their terms, not yours. And try to be pleased and relieved that so many more people are able to be honest about who/what they are, and are not, and live lives that are honest and a lot more productive and fulfilling. And put your own energies to more productive use.
No. of Recommendations: 5
Please accept people on their terms, not yours. And try to be pleased and relieved that so many more people are able to be honest about who/what they are, and are not, and live lives that are honest and a lot more productive and fulfilling. And put your own energies to more productive use. - sheila
-----------------
Free to be who you are. Sounds good. If I choose not to play the pronoun game, do I have the freedom to be who I am?
No. of Recommendations: 5
Free to be who you are. Sounds good. If I choose not to play the pronoun game, do I have the freedom to be who I am?
Sure. But not a sincere question. Because as long as I've "known" you, you have always exercised the freedom to assert whatever you believe, based on what you accept as the facts. And you belittle what falls outside of your beliefs, eg, "the pronoun game."
No. of Recommendations: 3
Sure. But not a sincere question. Because as long as I've "known" you, you have always exercised the freedom to assert whatever you believe, based on what you accept as the facts. And you belittle what falls outside of your beliefs, eg, "the pronoun game." - sheila
-----------------
Sheila, I agree I am outspoken with views not exactly mainstream around here but at least you and others are tolerant enough to put up with me instead of clamoring for my censorship in order to halt the spread of miss-information. You deserve some credit for open-mindedness but many on the progressive side are not so generous, example inability for a conservative to make a speech on 95% of the college campuses.
No. of Recommendations: 3
You deserve some credit for open-mindedness but many on the progressive side are not so generous,
Thanks for that. But the problem isn't limited to progressives/far left. There isn't remotely sufficient open-mindedness.....or inclusiveness.....today on either side. As we see shown all too often, all to rudely, all too crudely, up close and personal, on the Atheist board.
No. of Recommendations: 9
You deserve some credit for open-mindedness but many on the progressive side are not so generous, example inability for a conservative to make a speech on 95% of the college campuses.
73% of conservatives make up absurd statistics without a shred of proof.
Seriously though, how do you expect to have a rational discussion with someone after dropping that little tidbit into the conversation? I immediately want to pigeonhole you as someone who will say pretty much any damn thing in support of whatever position you happen to be taking at the moment.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Seriously though, how do you expect to have a rational discussion with someone after dropping that little tidbit into the conversation? I immediately want to pigeonhole you as someone who will say pretty much any damn thing in support of whatever position you happen to be taking at the moment. - carver
------------------
OK, let me phrase the sentiment this way, "Progressives are less tolerant of conflicting views and thus likely to favor censorship than conservatives." Better?
No. of Recommendations: 7
OK, let me phrase the sentiment this way, "Progressives are less tolerant of conflicting views and thus likely to favor censorship than conservatives." Better?
Not for me. Because this totally ignores the unfortunate reality that conservatives are at least as intolerant of conflicting views, and ardently favor censorship.....which they define as loyally turning their backs on dangerous conspiracies. Like defining "woke" as something destructive. Like banning books from schools and libraries. Like banning appropriate healthcare for women. Etc etc etc.
