I would. Because he is male. This is a biological fact and when it breaks down to the difference between biological fact and honoring someone's affectations my eyes begin to glaze over. I will honor the chosen identity of someone committed enough to transition as an adult, because I know that an …
I would. Because he is male. This is a biological fact and when it breaks down to the difference between biological fact and honoring someone's affectations my eyes begin to glaze over. I will honor the chosen identity of someone committed enough to transition as an adult, because I know that an almost vanishingly small percentage of those claiming transsexuality actually are dysphoric, and dysphoria is a malady no more summoned than diabetes or left-handedness. I wouldn't jump into his shit over it but if he started dictating to me or he was putting pronouns in his work email I would raise a stink.
But I would not tolerate the affectations of someone who cannot leave the topic of gender identity, someone for whom the phrase, along with "correct pronouns" and "misgendered" roll out of their mouths so readily you can hear the dust in the grooves. These are fanatics, and they are tiresome.
And in urging children to take dangerous hormones or even get surgeries. these fanatics are doing significant and tangible harm, and conservatives are exploiting them to foment outrage. Effectively.
"I would. Because he is male. This is a biological fact"
Yes, it is. But that doesn't necessarily affect what I call him. Some black people find it offensive to be called "coloured." I think this is silly. But I still won't call them coloured. I'm not denying reality by avoiding calling someone something they don't want to be called. Trans women are trans women. I'll happily go that far in the name of politeness.
Where I draw the line is calling someone something they're not. I wouldn't call a black person "white." I won't call a straight male a lesbian. I won't call a male a woman. Because women already exist and they are distinct from males.
I didn't mean I would set out to start a fight. Politeness is a virtue but denial of reality isn't.
I keep returning to the fact that the great majority of the "trans" world is fake, and when "trans" stops being edgy they'll find another way to get their extra ration of special attention. Just as there are a lot of gays who are despondent because being gay is no long extraordinary. Or, as they called it. "fabulous."
"Colored" sounds so 1950s.
I won't use "trans" because I refuse to go along with all the ploys that the activists are using to expand their numbers. Think you might be "trans?" Quick! Get sliced before you have time to change your mind! I can choke out "transgendered to female" but that's the best I could manage.
By the away. agreed ant TaraElla. She is the only sane on I ever ran across on Medium. I was on there again, didn't say a word to any of the "trans" people, just wrote and software, and after three weeks of not logging in I did so and saw a red box. That's it. I'm done. Most of the articles suck anyway. OK, sour grapes, but it's true.
"I was on there again, didn't say a word to any of the "trans" people, just wrote and software,"
What?! That's insane! I cannot get over the social pressure this issue exerts. Even during the height of the "racial reckoning" I don't think people were as touchy about racial wrongthink than they are about trans wrongthink today.
I completely stayed away from the "trans" posts, didn't mention anything in a response. The most objectionable thing I wrote was to tell an idiot who writes hundreds of articles about "code smells" that his title was at least halving his readership. It's a stupid and offensive phrase and the guy is not a very good programmer.
I didn't even get an email saying I had violated anything, no Roger (he/him).
Medium just likes banning people.
How you get away with articles like the "trans" ones is beyond me, the way they kowtow to those people is just shocking.
"I wouldn't call a trans woman a "man."
I would. Because he is male. This is a biological fact and when it breaks down to the difference between biological fact and honoring someone's affectations my eyes begin to glaze over. I will honor the chosen identity of someone committed enough to transition as an adult, because I know that an almost vanishingly small percentage of those claiming transsexuality actually are dysphoric, and dysphoria is a malady no more summoned than diabetes or left-handedness. I wouldn't jump into his shit over it but if he started dictating to me or he was putting pronouns in his work email I would raise a stink.
But I would not tolerate the affectations of someone who cannot leave the topic of gender identity, someone for whom the phrase, along with "correct pronouns" and "misgendered" roll out of their mouths so readily you can hear the dust in the grooves. These are fanatics, and they are tiresome.
And in urging children to take dangerous hormones or even get surgeries. these fanatics are doing significant and tangible harm, and conservatives are exploiting them to foment outrage. Effectively.
"I would. Because he is male. This is a biological fact"
Yes, it is. But that doesn't necessarily affect what I call him. Some black people find it offensive to be called "coloured." I think this is silly. But I still won't call them coloured. I'm not denying reality by avoiding calling someone something they don't want to be called. Trans women are trans women. I'll happily go that far in the name of politeness.
Where I draw the line is calling someone something they're not. I wouldn't call a black person "white." I won't call a straight male a lesbian. I won't call a male a woman. Because women already exist and they are distinct from males.
I didn't mean I would set out to start a fight. Politeness is a virtue but denial of reality isn't.
I keep returning to the fact that the great majority of the "trans" world is fake, and when "trans" stops being edgy they'll find another way to get their extra ration of special attention. Just as there are a lot of gays who are despondent because being gay is no long extraordinary. Or, as they called it. "fabulous."
"Colored" sounds so 1950s.
I won't use "trans" because I refuse to go along with all the ploys that the activists are using to expand their numbers. Think you might be "trans?" Quick! Get sliced before you have time to change your mind! I can choke out "transgendered to female" but that's the best I could manage.
By the away. agreed ant TaraElla. She is the only sane on I ever ran across on Medium. I was on there again, didn't say a word to any of the "trans" people, just wrote and software, and after three weeks of not logging in I did so and saw a red box. That's it. I'm done. Most of the articles suck anyway. OK, sour grapes, but it's true.
"I was on there again, didn't say a word to any of the "trans" people, just wrote and software,"
What?! That's insane! I cannot get over the social pressure this issue exerts. Even during the height of the "racial reckoning" I don't think people were as touchy about racial wrongthink than they are about trans wrongthink today.
I completely stayed away from the "trans" posts, didn't mention anything in a response. The most objectionable thing I wrote was to tell an idiot who writes hundreds of articles about "code smells" that his title was at least halving his readership. It's a stupid and offensive phrase and the guy is not a very good programmer.
I didn't even get an email saying I had violated anything, no Roger (he/him).
Medium just likes banning people.
How you get away with articles like the "trans" ones is beyond me, the way they kowtow to those people is just shocking.