Transgenderism

[Stevo985]

42 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

I think the argument is in past they were not allowed in, no idea how many women are in the changing room. Now they can come in and wait for an opportunity when only one woman is there on her own. 

A sexual predator could do that right now. They might just have to wait outside instead so as not to get noticed. Do you really think the sign on a door is stopping these kinds of people committing their acts?

43 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

Also, I can agree with women feeling uncomfortable with male genitalia in womens changing rooms. 

I agree, but how often is that going to happen? Are a load of blokes going to suddenly start using the women's changing rooms and getting their cock and balls out? And the difference between a transgender woman who still has her meat and two veg and a sexual predator getting his dick out is going to be pretty obvious

 

[CVByrne]

 

 

3 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

A sexual predator could do that right now. They might just have to wait outside instead so as not to get noticed. Do you really think the sign on a door is stopping these kinds of people committing their acts?

I agree, but how often is that going to happen? Are a load of blokes going to suddenly start using the women's changing rooms and getting their cock and balls out? And the difference between a transgender woman who still has her meat and two veg and a sexual predator getting his dick out is going to be pretty obvious

The standard argument is this as you stated above. It's not that common today so basically it's not really an issue so the women need to pipe down. ie the minority of women who end up in the situation really don't matter as we are trading their issue for this other minorities issue. 

Some women who have been sexually abused for example can feel afraid that a biological male is in their changing room. This isn't saying that person is going to harm them. It's a natural human defence mechanism. The fight or flight response it's called. 

[maqroll]

It was bound to happen eventually, but today I was "corrected" for the first time,  not by a transgendered person, but a non-binary one. A person I work with. Their name is Mark, who lives with another co-worker of ours, a woman named Erica. Mark is someone who was quite clearly born "male", and Erica "female", and that's how she self-identifies. Mark however, does not self-identify as male, and uses they/them pronouns. They (Mark AND Erica) are in their early 30's.

I've been working with them for about 4 months now, and about a month ago I learned that Mark uses they/them pronouns, strictly by chance while I was overhearing a conversation.

Anyway, today I said to Mark something to the effect of "Oh man, I'm sorry to hear that!" (He recently injured his foot). 

He immediately said, "I use they/them pronouns. Did you not know that?"

To which I replied, "Yes I heard. Pardon me, I'll try to be more cognizant of that."

He said "No problem, it's natural."

So......It wasn't too awkward, but I found it weird nonetheless. And it's not like they (Mark) ever mentioned it to me directly, or introduced themself like that, or even confirmed that someone else had informed me of it, so if I'm honest, I was a bit bemused by their (Mark's) reaction to my use of "man", especially because it was less of a label I was directing at them (Mark), but rather more of a exclamation. In my opinion, they (just Mark) over-reacted. 

They goes by Mark, lives with a woman, outwardly presents as a heterosexual male, but yet prefers and insists on people referring to Them (Mark) as They (Mark, singular), and I guess insists on people perceiving them as not male or at least pretending to perceive them as not male. I suppose it would be a lot easier to view them as non-binary if they were more gender neutral in appearance and mannerisms. I guess it's up to me to overcome that mental hurdle, maybe for everyone I initially meet, because you never know who might identify as what. My sister works in the non-profit sector and says all her business meetings, in person and online begin with everyone announcing their pronouns. So good luck when there are 14 people on a Zoom call and you have to remember all their pronouns. It's a high wire act.

But it's the reconfiguration of basic principles of grammar that I find to be the one aspect of this broader issue that I'm least sympathetic with. It is really difficult to reorient a lifetime of one's reflexive use of language and childhood instruction to accommodate the newly mainstreamed sensitivities of a relatively small demographic group of people. I'm just not sure how practical it is for society at large to make this shift, up to and including the reshaping of language instruction in kindergarten classrooms and beyond. 

When it comes to political support, I'm behind every group represented on the pride flag and beyond. This grammar thing though, it's tough!

 

Edited August 18, 2023 by maqroll

[Chindie]

Non-binary identification isn't related to transgenderism (though someone could be trans and non-binary). They're different things.

I'm not sure the mistake is that big of a deal, and as it's a genuine and understandable error I'm sure there's nothing more to it.

[Chindie]

Chess has become the latest sport to ban transwomen competing in female categories.

Chess is a complicated one because the arguments for and against sex segregation are more complex in a mental sport. In chess women have a segregated category but also can compete against men, it's simply a matter of choice. Very, very few women do, exaggerated by the fact the numbers of women competing in chess are ridiculously low. And there are figures that show women lose more often when playing against men, but studies have also shown this ratio is reduced when games are completely anonymous. Theres also questions over whether there are inherent advantages men have in the game that are more subtle (picking up the recognised differences in cognitive abilities between the sexes, whether the influence of male experience growing up v female affects how someone approaches the game etc etc). Likely a complete mess ahead and again, adding more grist to the millstone of attacking trans rights.

[maqroll]

28 minutes ago, Chindie said:

Non-binary identification isn't related to transgenderism (though someone could be trans and non-binary). They're different things.

I know, but I don't think we have a non-binary thread going so figured this thread was non-binary adjacent, and with similar social politics surrounding it.

[TheAuthority]

3 hours ago, maqroll said:

It was bound to happen eventually, but today I was "corrected" for the first time,  not by a transgendered person, but a non-binary one. A person I work with. Their name is Mark, who lives with another co-worker of ours, a woman named Erica. Mark is someone who was quite clearly born "male", and Erica "female", and that's how she self-identifies. Mark however, does not self-identify as male, and uses they/them pronouns. They (Mark AND Erica) are in their early 30's.

I've been working with them for about 4 months now, and about a month ago I learned that Mark uses they/them pronouns, strictly by chance while I was overhearing a conversation.

Anyway, today I said to Mark something to the effect of "Oh man, I'm sorry to hear that!" (He recently injured his foot). 

He immediately said, "I use they/them pronouns. Did you not know that?"

To which I replied, "Yes I heard. Pardon me, I'll try to be more cognizant of that."

He said "No problem, it's natural."

So......It wasn't too awkward, but I found it weird nonetheless. And it's not like they (Mark) ever mentioned it to me directly, or introduced themself like that, or even confirmed that someone else had informed me of it, so if I'm honest, I was a bit bemused by their (Mark's) reaction to my use of "man", especially because it was less of a label I was directing at them (Mark), but rather more of a exclamation. In my opinion, they (just Mark) over-reacted. 

They goes by Mark, lives with a woman, outwardly presents as a heterosexual male, but yet prefers and insists on people referring to Them (Mark) as They (Mark, singular), and I guess insists on people perceiving them as not male or at least pretending to perceive them as not male. I suppose it would be a lot easier to view them as non-binary if they were more gender neutral in appearance and mannerisms. I guess it's up to me to overcome that mental hurdle, maybe for everyone I initially meet, because you never know who might identify as what. My sister works in the non-profit sector and says all her business meetings, in person and online begin with everyone announcing their pronouns. So good luck when there are 14 people on a Zoom call and you have to remember all their pronouns. It's a high wire act.

But it's the reconfiguration of basic principles of grammar that I find to be the one aspect of this broader issue that I'm least sympathetic with. It is really difficult to reorient a lifetime of one's reflexive use of language and childhood instruction to accommodate the newly mainstreamed sensitivities of a relatively small demographic group of people. I'm just not sure how practical it is for society at large to make this shift, up to and including the reshaping of language instruction in kindergarten classrooms and beyond. 

When it comes to political support, I'm behind every group represented on the pride flag and beyond. This grammar thing though, it's tough!

 

Just a quick FYI and just addressing a very small part of your post. You can add your pronouns in preferences on zoom and every time you join a meeting it asks if you want to share them. If you do they appear after your name under your face. (I work for a non-profit too.)

[StefanAVFC]

9 hours ago, Chindie said:

Chess has become the latest sport to ban transwomen competing in female categories.

Chess is a complicated one because the arguments for and against sex segregation are more complex in a mental sport. In chess women have a segregated category but also can compete against men, it's simply a matter of choice. Very, very few women do, exaggerated by the fact the numbers of women competing in chess are ridiculously low. And there are figures that show women lose more often when playing against men, but studies have also shown this ratio is reduced when games are completely anonymous. Theres also questions over whether there are inherent advantages men have in the game that are more subtle (picking up the recognised differences in cognitive abilities between the sexes, whether the influence of male experience growing up v female affects how someone approaches the game etc etc). Likely a complete mess ahead and again, adding more grist to the millstone of attacking trans rights.

For me this shows how anti-feminist the TERF movement is. Chess has zero physical advantage, so they're basically saying women are stupider no?

[Chindie]

24 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

For me this shows how anti-feminist the TERF movement is. Chess has zero physical advantage, so they're basically saying women are stupider no?

It can be read that way, though I don't think the chess federation actually believes that.

I think the more accurate reading is they're concerned that transwomen might warp the competitiveness of the women's category, which like most sports is segregated as a concession category (although this being a mental sport its harder to define why there's a segregated category, but it's clear it exists to allow women to compete in a game that historically exceedingly few women have been competitive in). They are concerned that having a male background can inherently increase your ability in playing the game, be that through advantages in certain cognitive abilities (which have long been documented between the sexes) and the nurture effect where your approach to the game is affected by your mindset from being raised as male, to perhaps even concerns that female competitors will still approach a match with a transwoman as they would a man subconsciously, which studies show in the majority of cases negatively affects the female performance, and so on.

It's a complete mess. And whatever happens it'll be used to attack trans rights.

[StefanAVFC]

20 minutes ago, Chindie said:

It can be read that way, though I don't think the chess federation actually believes that.

I think the more accurate reading is they're concerned that transwomen might warp the competitiveness of the women's category, which like most sports is segregated as a concession category (although this being a mental sport its harder to define why there's a segregated category, but it's clear it exists to allow women to compete in a game that historically exceedingly few women have been competitive in). They are concerned that having a male background can inherently increase your ability in playing the game, be that through advantages in certain cognitive abilities (which have long been documented between the sexes) and the nurture effect where your approach to the game is affected by your mindset from being raised as male, to perhaps even concerns that female competitors will still approach a match with a transwoman as they would a man subconsciously, which studies show in the majority of cases negatively affects the female performance, and so on.

It's a complete mess. And whatever happens it'll be used to attack trans rights.

I'm not talking about the authorities here, more the outage from the Terfs.

[Chindie]

Well the TERFS just hate transpeople so anything that supports their views is a winner for them.

[mjmooney]

11 hours ago, maqroll said:

It is really difficult to reorient a lifetime of one's reflexive use of language and childhood instruction to accommodate the newly mainstreamed sensitivities of a relatively small demographic group of people. I'm just not sure how practical it is for society at large to make this shift, up to and including the reshaping of language instruction in kindergarten classrooms and beyond. 

When it comes to political support, I'm behind every group represented on the pride flag and beyond. This grammar thing though, it's tough!

This is exactly where I am. 

[Mark Albrighton]

Sometimes - not always, but sometimes - when I say “Ah man…” I’m not referring to the person I’m speaking to. It’s the same as when I say “Ah Jesus/Jeeeez”. I’m not calling the person “Jesus”.

It’s just an exclamation.

If I find myself in a similar position, I’ll be mindful but if I slip up that’s going to be my reasoning.

[Designer1]

My youngest identifies as Non Binary and after three years I still make the occasional She/Her fuckup .

Years of hardwired naming conventions are difficult to undo.

 

[Seat68]

Seems my sister, fairly centre ground with her politics has started watching a tik tok called truthseekerz0 and sharing it on Facebook, anti trans stuff. It has saddened me in all honesty, this is the one person in my family that I am close to and I am not sure where her anti trans thinking has come from. I asked her, 2 years ago did you care about trans people, I know she didn't, but she never responded. 

[Rolta]

27 minutes ago, Mark Albrighton said:

Sometimes - not always, but sometimes - when I say “Ah man…” I’m not referring to the person I’m speaking to. It’s the same as when I say “Ah Jesus/Jeeeez”. I’m not calling the person “Jesus”.

It’s just an exclamation.

If I find myself in a similar position, I’ll be mindful but if I slip up that’s going to be my reasoning.

I say 'Ah man...' in conversation with my girlfriend. It's not aimed at her at all. I wouldn't say 'Ah woman...'

It's more like 'Ah F ck!' 

Edited August 18, 2023 by Rolta

[Dante_Lockhart]

12 minutes ago, Rolta said:

I say 'Ah man...' in conversation with my girlfriend. It's not aimed at her at all. I wouldn't say 'Ah woman...'

 

I tend to go with 'Bitch please'

[bickster]

Ah man is a shortening of ah man alive, its just an expression of shock

[BOF]

1 hour ago, Mark Albrighton said:

Sometimes - not always, but sometimes - when I say “Ah man…” I’m not referring to the person I’m speaking to. It’s the same as when I say “Ah Jesus/Jeeeez”. I’m not calling the person “Jesus”.

It’s just an exclamation.

If I find myself in a similar position, I’ll be mindful but if I slip up that’s going to be my reasoning.

It's not a slip-up though. I use that expression talking to women too. It has absolutely nothing to do with the recipient or their gender.

[TreeVillan]

1 hour ago, Seat68 said:

Seems my sister, fairly centre ground with her politics has started watching a tik tok called truthseekerz0 and sharing it on Facebook, anti trans stuff. It has saddened me in all honesty, this is the one person in my family that I am close to and I am not sure where her anti trans thinking has come from. I asked her, 2 years ago did you care about trans people, I know she didn't, but she never responded. 

The only person in your family you're close with? Do you believe this to now be under threat because she holds an opinion you dislike?