"Misgendering," Arrests, and the UK

[SuccubusYuri]

Teh gays and the bisexuals proved themselves to be pretty damn competent and built civilizations despite those qualities.

Why even open your mouth?

[Worffan101]

Why? I'm not being flippant. If there is no objective test for gender, then how could somebody be right or wrong? Additionally, we don't normally consider someone's opinion of how they're doing to be the gold standard of any psychological condition (abnormal or otherwise), do we?

I don't understand what you're trying to say here? The only person who can truly know what they are is the individual themselves. It is therefore logically best for society to treat people as what they claim to be and take their self-identification at face level. Unless you want to undergo a bunch of experimental brain-scans every time you want to use a public toilet? Or have your hair color checked in microscopic detail whenever you put it down on some form? Have your DNA tested to see what bullshit artificial racial category some racist Senator thinks you fit into every time you apply for a job? Get an eye exam whenever you describe yourself physically? Have someone measure the hardness of your dick every time you have phone sex with your girlfriend?

Seriously, I lived at a college with gender-neutral restrooms for so long that I'm genuinely weirded out now by GENDERED ones. Adapting to a more modern society with less stupid, artificial ideas of how gender works is easy.

Honestly, unless it's something that can actually DIRECTLY (not indirectly/as a result of social pressures, but directly) affect quality of life, I don't see why we can't take people's self-identification at face value.

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.

Well, think of it this way. NOT recognizing trans people as their identified gender rather than whatever crap their genitals look like is like calling an albino African-American white because his skin is pale.

I mean, say I met you, I'll assume you're a guy for the purposes of this debate, and I called you a woman nonstop. You've always identified more with men, you've seen guys as more like yourself than women and vice versa, but here I am calling you a woman. I force you, a big hairy guy with a beard, to use the women's bathroom (because that's literally what post-op trans people being forced to use the wrong bathroom IS), because I say that because you were born on a Tuesday you're a woman and my religion believes that only women are born on Tuesdays and that can't be changed. Everybody in the world, I claim, has always known that people born on Tuesday are female (though in reality that's only true for Western branches of the Abrahamic religions--India and many Native American cultures have various different traditions ranging from "you can have your birthday changed if you feel more like a Wednesday person" in plains Native cultures, to Indians recognizing people born in the middle of Tuesday night as a third gender), God himself has ordained that this is the case and the great Lord Xenu who all God-fearing Americans worship KNOW that you, a Tuesday person, cannot be male and must register on all documents as a woman, even though you've always thought of yourself as male, hung out with people born on Wednesdays, et cetera.

Do you get this? At all?

I get that treating trans issues like they're not real is popular right now because trans people are the most universally shat-upon and unreasonably despised group in the world and unlike Jews, black people, and gay people but like Muslims and Mexicans it's still socially acceptable to hate them, but come on, man. Have the common politeness to let people be addressed as they wish.

Otherwise, well, I guess you could go up to retired Special Forces officer Kristin Beck and call her a man? Force her to use the men's room? I mean, you can try that, I guess, but I wouldn't really recommend it, any more than I'd recommend calling Rambo a pussy.

Or you could go up to Airman Logan Ireland and call him a woman and try to force Airman Ireland, a shredded guy with tattoos and a mustachio, to use the ladies' room? I guess you could try that, and the North Carolina Republican Party would help you, but he sure wouldn't appreciate it, any more than he'd appreciate calling his wife a man.

See, that's the thing. Trans people? They really, really don't like being called their assigned gender instead of their identified one. It's really kind of incredibly insulting. Incredibly insulting. "Calling a black guy a 'nigger'" insulting. Frankly, I don't see any reason why they SHOULDN'T have full legal protection.

[Karha of Honor]

Teh gays and the bisexuals proved themselves to be pretty damn competent and built civilizations despite those qualities.

Why even open your mouth?

Because this ain't no Lefty hugbox and i can.

Because Evolution made me this way.

[Darth Wedgius]

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

Well, think of it this way. NOT recognizing trans people as their identified gender rather than whatever crap their genitals look like is like calling an albino African-American white because his skin is pale.

I mean, say I met you, I'll assume you're a guy for the purposes of this debate, and I called you a woman nonstop. You've always identified more with men, you've seen guys as more like yourself than women and vice versa, but here I am calling you a woman. I force you, a big hairy guy with a beard, to use the women's bathroom (because that's literally what post-op trans people being forced to use the wrong bathroom IS), because I say that because you were born on a Tuesday you're a woman and my religion believes that only women are born on Tuesdays and that can't be changed. Everybody in the world, I claim, has always known that people born on Tuesday are female (though in reality that's only true for Western branches of the Abrahamic religions--India and many Native American cultures have various different traditions ranging from "you can have your birthday changed if you feel more like a Wednesday person" in plains Native cultures, to Indians recognizing people born in the middle of Tuesday night as a third gender), God himself has ordained that this is the case and the great Lord Xenu who all God-fearing Americans worship KNOW that you, a Tuesday person, cannot be male and must register on all documents as a woman, even though you've always thought of yourself as male, hung out with people born on Wednesdays, et cetera.

Do you get this? At all?

I get that treating trans issues like they're not real is popular right now because trans people are the most universally shat-upon and unreasonably despised group in the world and unlike Jews, black people, and gay people but like Muslims and Mexicans it's still socially acceptable to hate them, but come on, man. Have the common politeness to let people be addressed as they wish.

Otherwise, well, I guess you could go up to retired Special Forces officer Kristin Beck and call her a man? Force her to use the men's room? I mean, you can try that, I guess, but I wouldn't really recommend it, any more than I'd recommend calling Rambo a pussy.

Or you could go up to Airman Logan Ireland and call him a woman and try to force Airman Ireland, a shredded guy with tattoos and a mustachio, to use the ladies' room? I guess you could try that, and the North Carolina Republican Party would help you, but he sure wouldn't appreciate it, any more than he'd appreciate calling his wife a man.

See, that's the thing. Trans people? They really, really don't like being called their assigned gender instead of their identified one. It's really kind of incredibly insulting. Incredibly insulting. "Calling a black guy a 'nigger'" insulting. Frankly, I don't see any reason why they SHOULDN'T have full legal protection.

None of what you say really answers what I wrote, and I still value the rights of people to have different opinions on non-objective matters over hurt feelings.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree.

[Worffan101]

I don't see how what I wrote DOESN'T.

I reiterate that trying to make an ex-Navy SEAL use the wrong bathroom because she was born with a penis is a recipe for a political and physical ass-kicking, not to mention being straight-up morally wrong.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Why? I'm not being flippant. If there is no objective test for gender, then how could somebody be right or wrong? Additionally, we don't normally consider someone's opinion of how they're doing to be the gold standard of any psychological condition (abnormal or otherwise), do we?

As far as these types of policies are concerned, gender isn't being regarded as some expert opinion as law or medicine is. As you're saying, gender is not really a physical law, so it's being granted to a person's own personal and individual agency.

People aren't being held legally accountable for their opinion, it's how they're going about treating someone. There's legal precedent for laws pertaining to harassment.

[Darth Wedgius]

I don't see how what I wrote DOESN'T.

I reiterate that trying to make an ex-Navy SEAL use the wrong bathroom because she was born with a penis is a recipe for a political and physical ass-kicking, not to mention being straight-up morally wrong.

It should be really obvious that the second part has no significance. If you walked up to a guy with a gun and called him rude and he shot you, that doesn't mean he wasn't rude, does it? It just means he was rude and armed.

To the first part, you established no objective basis for determining that someone was right, you just said that someone could object to someone else's opinion. They might think of it as the equivalent of calling a black man a n*gger, but that's just another opinion. Yes, feelings might be hurt. Feelings could be hurt when your son/daughter comes out of the closet, or decides to vote Democrat. Hurt feelings are part of life.

Seriously, I don't think you're going to understand this.

[Darth Wedgius]

Why? I'm not being flippant. If there is no objective test for gender, then how could somebody be right or wrong? Additionally, we don't normally consider someone's opinion of how they're doing to be the gold standard of any psychological condition (abnormal or otherwise), do we?

As far as these types of policies are concerned, gender isn't being regarded as some expert opinion as law or medicine is. As you're saying, gender is not really a physical law, so it's being granted to a person's own personal and individual agency.

People aren't being held legally accountable for their opinion, it's how they're going about treating someone. There's legal precedent for laws pertaining to harassment.

Again, it's still just an opinion. You're not in any way convincing that it isn't an opinion. It is also your opinion that it should be granted to the individual, but there's no objective reason for that.

Harassment can be legally punished, but calling someone a stupid doo-doo head isn't harassment. If any behavior that annoys someone is harassment, you're harassing me right now by arguing with me, and by not giving me $50. I'm really annoyed by that $50.

Can you give me an objective reason it isn't just an opinion?

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Why? I'm not being flippant. If there is no objective test for gender, then how could somebody be right or wrong? Additionally, we don't normally consider someone's opinion of how they're doing to be the gold standard of any psychological condition (abnormal or otherwise), do we?

As far as these types of policies are concerned, gender isn't being regarded as some expert opinion as law or medicine is. As you're saying, gender is not really a physical law, so it's being granted to a person's own personal and individual agency.

People aren't being held legally accountable for their opinion, it's how they're going about treating someone. There's legal precedent for laws pertaining to harassment.

Again, it's still just an opinion. You're not in any way convincing that it isn't an opinion. It is also your opinion that it should be granted to the individual, but there's no objective reason for that.

Harassment can be legally punished, but calling someone a stupid doo-doo head isn't harassment. If any behavior that annoys someone is harassment, you're harassing me right now by arguing with me, and by not giving me $50. I'm really annoyed by that $50.

Can you give me an objective reason it isn't just an opinion?

There seems to be two claims coming out of this dispute with Worffan. That personal gender is an opinion, and that the law shouldn't come down on Kate Scottow for having a separate opinion. Regarding the latter, the court proceeding appears to center around what's described as a campaign of harassment and is a bit more complicated than calling someone a doodoo head. Also, it's commonly understood that there are limitations to free speech, even in the United States. What's going on in the UK is obviously in dispute for how strong those limitations are coming off, but framing it as "woman arrested for opinion," is misleading a bit.

Regarding the former, with personally identified gender being an opinion, sure I guess you can classify it as an opinion as far as the way you're describing the circumstance, but that doesn't really shape the situation to fit how you're describing it. Does that support Worffan's position? Maybe maybe not.

[Darth Wedgius]

Why? I'm not being flippant. If there is no objective test for gender, then how could somebody be right or wrong? Additionally, we don't normally consider someone's opinion of how they're doing to be the gold standard of any psychological condition (abnormal or otherwise), do we?

As far as these types of policies are concerned, gender isn't being regarded as some expert opinion as law or medicine is. As you're saying, gender is not really a physical law, so it's being granted to a person's own personal and individual agency.

People aren't being held legally accountable for their opinion, it's how they're going about treating someone. There's legal precedent for laws pertaining to harassment.

Again, it's still just an opinion. You're not in any way convincing that it isn't an opinion. It is also your opinion that it should be granted to the individual, but there's no objective reason for that.

Harassment can be legally punished, but calling someone a stupid doo-doo head isn't harassment. If any behavior that annoys someone is harassment, you're harassing me right now by arguing with me, and by not giving me $50. I'm really annoyed by that $50.

Can you give me an objective reason it isn't just an opinion?

There seems to be two claims coming out of this dispute with Worffan. That personal gender is an opinion, and that the law shouldn't come down on Kate Scottow for having a separate opinion. Regarding the latter, the court proceeding appears to center around what's described as a campaign of harassment and is a bit more complicated than calling someone a doodoo head. Also, it's commonly understood that there are limitations to free speech, even in the United States. What's going on in the UK is obviously in dispute for how strong those limitations are coming off, but framing it as "woman arrested for opinion," is misleading a bit.

Regarding the former, with personally identified gender being an opinion, sure I guess you can classify it as an opinion as far as the way you're describing the circumstance, but that doesn't really shape the situation to fit how you're describing it. Does that support Worffan's position? Maybe maybe not.

I agree that actual harassment should have legal repercussions, and the main case mentioned might have qualified. Even calling someone a stupid doo-doo head over and over and over could be pushing the line.