"Misgendering," Arrests, and the UK

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Gender doesn't really have an objective measure, but it's recognized broadly on a range from personal introspection to societal conventional standard. And the lack of objective measure means there's no discrete bind between identifying and perceiving. Contrapoints did a video on it.

Gender as a social construct isn't really that hard to understand and the premise wasn't particularly new to me, but the practice of transgender raises questions when you consider that binary gender structure has a strong potential for a desire for being perceived as a particular gender on a social level. Any of us can understand that social conventions far from resemble innate physical laws, but do resemble sellers markets on a subliminal level for lots.

Peak man are stronger, better coordinated in sports period compared to peak women athletes.

Pretty sure we covered that exact point in another thread. thank you very much

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

I don't know what I can say except what I already said. If there's no objective way to evaluate a person's gender, then I don't see any way someone's self-identification can be anything but an opinion.

Maybe an example will help. There are "otherkin" who identify as some other animal, but not in any objectively discernible way. And what's someone else going to say? "Sorry, you're really spiritually not a wolf, but a giraffe"?

If there's no physical expression on any level of someone's gender, then it doesn't seem to me to have an objective meaning.

As far as what harm is done by respecting someone's opinion, I don't know. That gets into psychological areas I'm not qualified in, and I'm not saying "don't play into these people's craziness," I'm literally saying I don't know. Like I said, I have no problem calling someone he, she, Mr., Ms., Mrs. Miss, Sir, or, Ma'am. If I can be kind at no real trouble to myself, why not? If someone with a beard, a beer, a monster truck t-shirt, and a chainsaw wants to be called ma'am, that's fine with me, and not just because I don't want to argue with someone with a chainsaw.

What I disagree with is the force of the law coming down on people with different opinions about something that isn't objectively discernible.

I think it's a fair question for consideration, maybe even at excessive lengths, but assuming you're a man, if your boss officially started designating you a woman, what's your take on that kind of situation?

[Darth Wedgius]

I don't know what I can say except what I already said. If there's no objective way to evaluate a person's gender, then I don't see any way someone's self-identification can be anything but an opinion.

Maybe an example will help. There are "otherkin" who identify as some other animal, but not in any objectively discernible way. And what's someone else going to say? "Sorry, you're really spiritually not a wolf, but a giraffe"?

If there's no physical expression on any level of someone's gender, then it doesn't seem to me to have an objective meaning.

As far as what harm is done by respecting someone's opinion, I don't know. That gets into psychological areas I'm not qualified in, and I'm not saying "don't play into these people's craziness," I'm literally saying I don't know. Like I said, I have no problem calling someone he, she, Mr., Ms., Mrs. Miss, Sir, or, Ma'am. If I can be kind at no real trouble to myself, why not? If someone with a beard, a beer, a monster truck t-shirt, and a chainsaw wants to be called ma'am, that's fine with me, and not just because I don't want to argue with someone with a chainsaw.

What I disagree with is the force of the law coming down on people with different opinions about something that isn't objectively discernible.

I think it's a fair question for consideration, maybe even at excessive lengths, but assuming you're a man, if your boss officially started designating you a woman, what's your take on that kind of situation?

I guess it depends on the day. Some days I might have fun with it ("Does this flowchart make my butt look big?"), some days I might be annoyed with it ("Counting you, boss, I have two dicks.") but I wouldn't be for his arrest. If he demanded I wear a skirt to work I'd complain to HR, in part because I really don't think I have the legs for it.

[Karha of Honor]

Gender doesn't really have an objective measure, but it's recognized broadly on a range from personal introspection to societal conventional standard. And the lack of objective measure means there's no discrete bind between identifying and perceiving. Contrapoints did a video on it.

Gender as a social construct isn't really that hard to understand and the premise wasn't particularly new to me, but the practice of transgender raises questions when you consider that binary gender structure has a strong potential for a desire for being perceived as a particular gender on a social level. Any of us can understand that social conventions far from resemble innate physical laws, but do resemble sellers markets on a subliminal level for lots.

Peak man are stronger, better coordinated in sports period compared to peak women athletes.

Pretty sure we covered that exact point in another thread. thank you very much

Was the conclusion that gender is not a social construct?

[Madner Kami]

If he demanded I wear a skirt to work I'd complain to HR, in part because I really don't think I have the legs for it.

Although it's unintuitive, try to wear a long skirt in the summer. Your legs are in the shade, the skirt leaves more air around your legs compared to regular pants and the skirt's material acts like a fan when walking around. I can highly recommend this.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

I don't know what I can say except what I already said. If there's no objective way to evaluate a person's gender, then I don't see any way someone's self-identification can be anything but an opinion.

Maybe an example will help. There are "otherkin" who identify as some other animal, but not in any objectively discernible way. And what's someone else going to say? "Sorry, you're really spiritually not a wolf, but a giraffe"?

If there's no physical expression on any level of someone's gender, then it doesn't seem to me to have an objective meaning.

As far as what harm is done by respecting someone's opinion, I don't know. That gets into psychological areas I'm not qualified in, and I'm not saying "don't play into these people's craziness," I'm literally saying I don't know. Like I said, I have no problem calling someone he, she, Mr., Ms., Mrs. Miss, Sir, or, Ma'am. If I can be kind at no real trouble to myself, why not? If someone with a beard, a beer, a monster truck t-shirt, and a chainsaw wants to be called ma'am, that's fine with me, and not just because I don't want to argue with someone with a chainsaw.

What I disagree with is the force of the law coming down on people with different opinions about something that isn't objectively discernible.

I think it's a fair question for consideration, maybe even at excessive lengths, but assuming you're a man, if your boss officially started designating you a woman, what's your take on that kind of situation?

I guess it depends on the day. Some days I might have fun with it ("Does this flowchart make my butt look big?"), some days I might be annoyed with it ("Counting you, boss, I have two dicks.") but I wouldn't be for his arrest. If he demanded I wear a skirt to work I'd complain to HR, in part because I really don't think I have the legs for it.

I get the classical liberal stint about the law, but when you reduce everything down to an opinion it kinda comes off trite for consideration. I get that you'd personally have fun with him simply calling you a woman, but regardless of insecure masculinity standards that you're not subject to, official correspondence within a department or between other departments or companies would be kind of extensive compared to the scope you're conveying.

Gender doesn't really have an objective measure, but it's recognized broadly on a range from personal introspection to societal conventional standard. And the lack of objective measure means there's no discrete bind between identifying and perceiving. Contrapoints did a video on it.

Gender as a social construct isn't really that hard to understand and the premise wasn't particularly new to me, but the practice of transgender raises questions when you consider that binary gender structure has a strong potential for a desire for being perceived as a particular gender on a social level. Any of us can understand that social conventions far from resemble innate physical laws, but do resemble sellers markets on a subliminal level for lots.

Peak man are stronger, better coordinated in sports period compared to peak women athletes.

Pretty sure we covered that exact point in another thread. thank you very much

Was the conclusion that gender is not a social construct?

It took several pages, but yeah I got the damn job done.

[Karha of Honor]

It took several pages, but yeah I got the damn job done.

Link.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

It took several pages, but yeah I got the damn job done.

Link.

viewtopic.php?f=14&t=2494&p=32422&hilit ... ams#p32422

[Karha of Honor]

It took several pages, but yeah I got the damn job done.

Link.

viewtopic.php?f=14&t=2494&p=32422&hilit ... ams#p32422

In which post did you end the argument?

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

It took several pages, but yeah I got the damn job done.

Link.

viewtopic.php?f=14&t=2494&p=32422&hilit ... ams#p32422

In which post did you end the argument?

Well sorry I might have been inaccurate on the course of events.