Fined for calling a Transgender person by the wrong pronoun

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

I hope you're not being serious with that post Zuben.

was a post deleted?

Shield wrote: »

God made the two, and God doesn't make mistakes, so the problem must be with the Transgender person supposing they are something that they really aren't, and can never be.

Something like that.

There's far more evidence that trans people are real than god is real.

Shield wrote: »

I have family members, friends, and colleagues who aren't on board with the transgender agenda, and I know some of those mentioned (in particular, the olders ones) would be wholly against using pronouns that do not match the biological sex of the person being discussed. The best way to alienate these people is start calling them names. It's not going to educate them.

Well, calling it an "agenda" isn't going to win them around either. Try calling it things like "science" or "law" or "medicine" much more solid terms.

Mystery Egg wrote: »

It is not just the devoutly religious who oppose transgender people by the way. I have come across far left views that hold it to be a gross indulgence, as well as radical feminism, which rejects the idea that a man can ever become a woman, no matter what surgical interventions take place.

That's a misrepresentation of the principles of radical feminism, although due to the diversity of opinion and application of the principles within radical feminism it's an easy mistake to make.

Radical feminism at it's core says that gender is a construct, created over millenia via oppression of women, and forcing them into a lessor role based on their sex. Gender is how someone is raised according to their sex at birth and people are raised into the role as a means of oppression, and the experience of oppression further pushes them into that gendered role (whether intentional or not doesn't really matter.)

Many early radfems roundly rejected transsexual people, and pretty much all the main, influential figures from the original popular rise of radical feminism worked hard against transsexual people. Some radfems still stick to that, others don't.

However as a broad rule radfems reject the umbrella category of transgender, which includes transsexual people, but which also includes genderfluid people, non-binary people, genderqueer people, some people who identify as entirely on one side of the binary and view themselves as "transgender," but not transsexual, in some cases crossdressers are included under transgender whether it be fetish/kink based crossdressing, emotional crossdressing, or crossdressing as a simple statement or fashion, and in even more broadly applied meanings of transgender drag queens, who are artists playing a character are included under the trangender umbrella. The problem a lot of radfems have with these cases isn't that these people exist, but that they reinforce an identity based the promotion of the real and natural existence of an intrinsic gender, and rather than viewing it as an expression of the self, it's an expression of a gender identity. And that's problematic because for radical feminism gender is a means of oppression, not an identity.

If someone is claiming their particular gender (genderqueer, non-binary) is a specific instance of a gender, it goes against radfem thought that gender is a means of oppression and a method of raising someone through oppression, and that person's reaction to oppression, because it validates gender as an identity rather than a cause of and reaction to oppression. The ultimate goal of radical feminists is that people are raised according to their abilities, and needs, and without construing aspects of their sex as defining them beyond pure functions of sex.

I've talked to a few radfems, read more radfem theory than I got from my talks, and I'm good friends with one radfem. Most of them have strong connections to the original popular rise of radical feminism. While they reject ideas of transgender as distinct identities, they view expression of what would be considered "gender variant traits" i.e. transgressing lines of gender expression and norms as something there would be more of if there was less policing of both sexes. So boys playing with dolls, and girls playing with trucks is perfectly normal for children, but this normality is rejected by raising children to fill certain rolls (and thus implementing the ideas of gender underlying oppression.)

These radfems are open to ideas behind people being transsexual. The idea being that it's not your gender that's the issue, it's your sex. And sex is real. They accept that these trans people have issues with their sex, and wish to change their sex. It's viewed as a medical issue, rather than an issue of identity, especially as science has been progressing and there's more evidence coming out for there being biological signs that highlight transsexualism, along a sex based axis. Although there is debate of whether there are at birth neurological sex based differences, some say there is, some say the instant application of gender to extremely young babies taints the tests done at early ages, and no result can ever be clear, and some say there is no neurological difference and any differences down the road are because of how someone is raised.

The problem with transgender people, transsexual people, and radical feminists interacting is partly historical, partly the complexity of theories at play, partly identity politics, partly sheer intolerance (from every side), and partly the refusal of pretty much every side to tone down their language and in some cases aggression. I've seen a radfem present the most calm, reasoned, dispassionate, toned and understanding case for radical feminist beliefs, and how they relate to transsexual people and transgender people in an understanding manner. She was hounded away, despite the fact that the transsexual people talking to her were literally the most understanding of what she was saying. The problem was that what she was presenting was a radical feminist idea, and it followed radical feminist logic, which unless you give it serious thought and consideration without prejudice it is very easy to see conclusions and arguments in the line of reasoning that don't exist at all, purely because that is how the interactions and arguments between transsexual people, transgender people and radical feminists is portrayed by the extremes, who tend to be the loudest and least tolerant of challenging ideas. Of course it also doesn't help that there's plenty of internet heroes who have absolutely no idea of the intricacies of any part of anyone's argument who will use some trans ideology one minute to bash feminism, and some radfem belief the next to bash trans people. These heroes goal is to be aggressive and antagonistic and nothing else. They don't believe in radfem theories, and they don't believe in trans theories, they just want to use them to cause trouble. They're angry, ignorant twerps basically.

Anyone my whole point of this is that saying radical feminism is inherently opposed to trans people is wrong, just as it's equally wrong wrong to say trans people are inherently opposed to radical feminist beliefs. The reality is some radfems reject transsexual people, but the idea that all radfems is based on decades old theory and belief. Equally it's wrong to say trans people view radfems as their natural enemy. Some do, many do, but not all.

There's obviously far, far more to the basic ideas I'm talking about here. And that's without even going into what I think (which is always evolving.) But I don't think I've ever seen a discussion of this type of stuff anywhere on boards, and anything I have seen is either so wide of the mark, or so reductivist that there's rarely a point in getting engaged. And generally, I don't think boards is even capable of having a discussion about this.

And mostly my point is that people bring these statements about radical feminists not believing/accepting transsexualism, without even a basic understanding of the actual ideas supporting radical feminism. And then the next week they'll be calling radical feminists the extremists that wants to destroy men. The problem with both of those cases is the same, radical feminists and transsexual people are being used.

WTF? Clicking on 'go to first unread post' takes me to a thread in another forum about quitting smoking - same for anybody else?

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

this has already been clarified. If the person has already specified a gender then you use the appropriate pronoun or use a neutral pronoun. this is about deliberately using the incorrect pronoun because it upsets your sensibilities in some way.

Beyond ridiculous. If someone corrected my use of a inappropriate pronoun I would not talk to them again. Talk about generation snowflake.

HardenendMan wrote: »

Beyond ridiculous. If someone corrected my use of a inappropriate pronoun I would not talk to them again. Talk about generation snowflake.

If anything you're the snowflake for deciding to not speak to someone again for correcting you on something like that. Not a very "hardenend" man at all.

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

The term 'human rights' has lost all meaning.

How dare they apply human rights to humans.

Jayop wrote: »

Delicate? You'd be deliberately insulting them. You don't think someone would be within their rights to be offended after being deliberately insulted?

Yeah I'm sure you not talking to them would be a win for them too.

Hang on, I never said I would do it deliberately. I have never seen a transgender person, I could get it wrong. But my point is that if they corrected me I would find it very annoying.

HardenendMan wrote: »

Beyond ridiculous. If someone corrected my use of a inappropriate pronoun I would not talk to them again. Talk about generation snowflake.

Is that because you're a little girl? Not a hardenendman at all but a little girly. aww....

See, that's someone deliberately mistaking your gender. It's also making assumptions based on gender. If someone in work always refered to you as little girl, I'm pretty certain you'd be raising it with HR.