FREE TAPATALK APP

kellyb · 16th December 2012, 01:49 AM

Originally Posted by Wildy

I think it's because the invented pronouns look stupid.

Well, ok. But what looks stupid to one person might be deeply meaningful to another. I have no idea what it's like to self-identify as gender neutral. But if someone who identifies with no gender asks me to refer to them an "xe", I don't think it's ok to mock that.

Mashuna · 16th December 2012, 01:53 AM

Originally Posted by Wildy

I think it's because the invented pronouns look stupid.

I'm pretty sure that all pronouns are invented.

kellyb · 16th December 2012, 01:57 AM

Originally Posted by Mashuna

I'm pretty sure that all pronouns are invented.

Totally.

WillyWonka · 16th December 2012, 05:19 AM

Originally Posted by kellyb

Well, ok. But what looks stupid to one person might be deeply meaningful to another. I have no idea what it's like to self-identify as gender neutral. But if someone who identifies with no gender asks me to refer to them an "xe", I don't think it's ok to mock that.

Unfortunately, languages do not work this way, as to invent words for a very selected group of people, then expect that the population will fully understand its meaning. Besides, this is absolutely English-centric, as this pattern creating would make absolutely no sense in other languages, as in French for example.

The Man · 16th December 2012, 06:12 AM

Originally Posted by brodski

This just makes me wonder what is wrong with "them".

Because it helps to perpetuate an "us" or "them" mentality, which of course they (A+) just can't have. Unless of course that "us" is, well, just "them".

Stout · 16th December 2012, 06:46 AM

Originally Posted by Wildy

I think it's because the invented pronouns look stupid.

Yes, they do look stupid but I'm willing to overlook that fact if I can use them in Scrabble to get the X or Z on one of those points lucrative spaces.

I too have no idea what it's like to identify "somewhere" on the gender spectrum. For years we've had transsexuals telling us that they were born in the wrong body and want to identify/be identified with as the opposite gender.

Fair enough.

But genderqueer ? WTF ? Your kinda sorta man, your kinda sorta woman, whatever you feel like when you wake up in the morning ? You're a truck driver wearing jeans, cowboy boots, a t-shirt with Cat Diesel on it and a baseball cap with Freightliner emblazoned on it by day and you dress up as a French maid on the weekends ?

This is a "thing" now ? Something other than a fetish or a bad fashion sense ?

Stout · 16th December 2012, 07:03 AM

Here's the latest from A+watch

Something as simple as asking for input whether APlusser's support legal restrictions on "freeze peach" as they like to call it is enough to crank up the rant machine. Curious though, as most of their more, errrrrrr, emotional posters are Canadian and have to be thinking that the poster who posed the question probably had something like this in mind when they made their query.

Thread....Couple of general Questions About A+

It's now a bannable offense to not take one of Grimalkin's profanity and insult laden rant's seriously. Thread.

That place is an embarrassment to Atheists.

Foolmewunz · 16th December 2012, 07:12 AM

Originally Posted by kellyb

Well, ok. But what looks stupid to one person might be deeply meaningful to another. I have no idea what it's like to self-identify as gender neutral. But if someone who identifies with no gender asks me to refer to them an "xe", I don't think it's ok to mock that.

I'm not mocking a person who asked to be referred to as "xe", I'm mocking the PC police in that thread rushing in with the trendy correction. If whomever the poster was referring to had specifically responded with a request to be called "xe" or "mugwump", it might be worthy of consideration, but it looks to me as though this is a movement to replace any instance where one might use he/she, e.g. not knowing the gender of the person who they are addressing or speaking of, and change that to xe.

Correct me if I'm wrong. Is it only to be used for specifically those who identify as non-gendered(if that's the right term)? Or is it, as it appears to be heading, a movement to replace genderfied personal pronouns with xe?

Hillbert · 16th December 2012, 08:12 AM

Originally Posted by kellyb

Well, ok. But what looks stupid to one person might be deeply meaningful to another. I have no idea what it's like to self-identify as gender neutral. But if someone who identifies with no gender asks me to refer to them an "xe", I don't think it's ok to mock that.

I think part of the problem occurs when it's a new word with no immediate and obvious derivation, and then people get arsey about it being used in the incorrect way.

It also happens with words like "racism" which have a slightly different meaning in the social justice regime. Which always leads to the "only white people can be racist" kerfuffle. Although I think xe and xir are less problematic than something like a redefinition of racism as xe/xir were never words to start with.

But yeah, in general if it takes a new word or two to make someone happier with themselves and their own self-identification then fair enough, it's a small (practically non existent) price.

ponderingturtle · 16th December 2012, 08:29 AM

Originally Posted by kellyb

Well, ok. But what looks stupid to one person might be deeply meaningful to another. I have no idea what it's like to self-identify as gender neutral. But if someone who identifies with no gender asks me to refer to them an "xe", I don't think it's ok to mock that.

They totally need to reach out to the otherkin community. Forcing fairies, vampires, werewolves, and pokemon to identify as human is human privilege.

Wildy · 16th December 2012, 08:51 AM

Originally Posted by kellyb

Well, ok. But what looks stupid to one person might be deeply meaningful to another. I have no idea what it's like to self-identify as gender neutral. But if someone who identifies with no gender asks me to refer to them an "xe", I don't think it's ok to mock that.

Foolmewunz made a pretty good point just then. It wasn't the genderqueer person who asked to be referred to as either the singular "they" or some other stupider sounding pronoun but a mod.

Originally Posted by Mashuna

I'm pretty sure that all pronouns are invented.

Sigh...

Originally Posted by Stout

Yes, they do look stupid but I'm willing to overlook that fact if I can use them in Scrabble to get the X or Z on one of those points lucrative spaces.

I forgot about that possibility. The problem would be trying to convince your opponent that those stupid words are actually words.

Quote:

But genderqueer ? WTF ? Your kinda sorta man, your kinda sorta woman, whatever you feel like when you wake up in the morning ? You're a truck driver wearing jeans, cowboy boots, a t-shirt with Cat Diesel on it and a baseball cap with Freightliner emblazoned on it by day and you dress up as a French maid on the weekends ?

This is a "thing" now ? Something other than a fetish or a bad fashion sense ?

From a quick look it seems that "genderqueer" is a catch all term for a bunch of different circumstances. So a Fa'afafine would be most likely be considered "genderqueer". But then I'd assume that would cause some strange paradox among certain social justice people because they would be forcing Western cultural standards upon a non-Western culture.

s_pepys · 16th December 2012, 02:15 PM

m shermer vs o benson.

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/12-12-12/

lxxx

UnrepentantSinner · 16th December 2012, 08:58 PM

Originally Posted by s_pepys

m shermer vs o benson.

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/12-12-12/

lxxx

Is anyone else reminded when they read crap like this:

Unbelieving in God is thinky work, and women don’t do thinky, because ‘that’s a guy thing

from A+, FtB, Skepchic, etc, of Sarah Palin and her "hopey changie" inanity?

kellyb · 16th December 2012, 10:02 PM

Originally Posted by Stout

Yes, they do look stupid but I'm willing to overlook that fact if I can use them in Scrabble to get the X or Z on one of those points lucrative spaces.

I too have no idea what it's like to identify "somewhere" on the gender spectrum. For years we've had transsexuals telling us that they were born in the wrong body and want to identify/be identified with as the opposite gender.

Fair enough.

But genderqueer ? WTF ? Your kinda sorta man, your kinda sorta woman, whatever you feel like when you wake up in the morning ? You're a truck driver wearing jeans, cowboy boots, a t-shirt with Cat Diesel on it and a baseball cap with Freightliner emblazoned on it by day and you dress up as a French maid on the weekends ?

This is a "thing" now ? Something other than a fetish or a bad fashion sense ?

Sort of, but not exactly.
There's a whole swath of the population that feels ambiguous about their gender. If you see gender as a spectrum, they're somewhere in the middle.

I'm not genderqueer, myself. So, I don't know if it's appropriate for me to speak on their behalf. If you really want to understand it further, you can just ask some of them what's up. I can say a couple of things with some certainty, tho:

1) some of these folks are totally ok with their bodies and have no intentions of ever becoming more male or female. They're fine with always being gender ambiguous with the plumbing/body they were born with.
2) some are in the process of becoming the "other" gender, and will eventually probably self-identify as strongly male or female, he/she.

According to some definitions, at least 1% of the population is literally, physically intersex:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex

I don't know what % of the genderqueer folks are intersex. I'd guess some are and some aren't. And I don't think it matters. If someone has, say, outdoor male plumbing but just feels kind of female, who am I to argue? What does it matter how they dress?

UnrepentantSinner · 16th December 2012, 10:44 PM

Originally Posted by kellyb

What's funny about gender-neutral pronouns when referring to gender-neutral people?

{personal opinion}

There are no gender-neutral people. There are intergendered people, but no one is lacking in gender IMO.

{/personal opinion}

kellyb · 16th December 2012, 11:01 PM

Originally Posted by UnrepentantSinner

{personal opinion}

There are no gender-neutral people. There are intergendered people, but no one is lacking in gender IMO.

{/personal opinion}

I'm cool with that idea.

UnrepentantSinner · 17th December 2012, 01:58 AM

Originally Posted by s_pepys

m shermer vs o benson.

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/12-12-12/

lxxx

I've been reading the comments and there's been some humorous headbutting between the FTB/A+/Skepchick cultists and rational skeptics. Funny how the #FTBullies don't spew as much invective when they can't delete posts and ban commentators they don't like.

ponderingturtle · 17th December 2012, 03:07 AM

Originally Posted by UnrepentantSinner

{personal opinion}

There are no gender-neutral people. There are intergendered people, but no one is lacking in gender IMO.

{/personal opinion}

I don't know. I have a friend who identifies as non gendered. He feels some degree of disphoria over having genitals.

I don't know why I feel that this should be taken seriously and yet would take issue with otherkin and wouldn't take them seriously. Both are identities.

UnrepentantSinner · 17th December 2012, 04:10 AM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

I don't know. I have a friend who identifies as non gendered. He feels some degree of disphoria over having genitals.

That sounds, to my laymans ears, like a larger psychological issue than gender disphoria. Not judging and what do I know though. :shrug:

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

I don't know why I feel that this should be taken seriously and yet would take issue with otherkin and wouldn't take them seriously. Both are identities.

Because people with gender identity issues, be they genetic, physical or psychological exist, while otherkins don't.

arthwollipot · 17th December 2012, 05:39 AM

Originally Posted by UnrepentantSinner

Because people with gender identity issues, be they genetic, physical or psychological exist, while otherkins don't.

Yeah, they do. They generally don't let on though, because of the reactions they get.

ponderingturtle · 17th December 2012, 05:56 AM

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Yeah, they do. They generally don't let on though, because of the reactions they get.

Now we need to define exist.

Stout · 17th December 2012, 06:30 AM

Originally Posted by kellyb

Sort of, but not exactly.
There's a whole swath of the population that feels ambiguous about their gender. If you see gender as a spectrum, they're somewhere in the middle.

I'm not genderqueer, myself. So, I don't know if it's appropriate for me to speak on their behalf. If you really want to understand it further, you can just ask some of them what's up. I can say a couple of things with some certainty, tho:

1) some of these folks are totally ok with their bodies and have no intentions of ever becoming more male or female. They're fine with always being gender ambiguous with the plumbing/body they were born with.
2) some are in the process of becoming the "other" gender, and will eventually probably self-identify as strongly male or female, he/she.

According to some definitions, at least 1% of the population is literally, physically intersex:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex

I don't know what % of the genderqueer folks are intersex. I'd guess some are and some aren't. And I don't think it matters. If someone has, say, outdoor male plumbing but just feels kind of female, who am I to argue? What does it matter how they dress?

Cheers kellyb

I guess the problems I having are reconciling the idea that there's any real spectrum of gender with the whole idea of "being born in the wrong body" I'd try to see genderqueer as a sort of pre-transsexual holding pattern rather than simply enjoying the trappings stereotypically associated with the opposite gender.

I haven't seen too many people pull off gender ambiguous, successfully. Usually the person in question comes off looking like a girly guy or a butch girl. Sure, "the look" is there however quite often there's no mistaking the gender of the person.

Why wouldn't an intersex person identify as that seeing how it's a real physical condition rather than taking on some strange sounding label that most likely doesn't apply to them or their identity ?

ponderingturtle · 17th December 2012, 06:36 AM

Originally Posted by Stout

Cheers kellyb

I guess the problems I having are reconciling the idea that there's any real spectrum of gender with the whole idea of "being born in the wrong body" I'd try to see genderqueer as a sort of pre-transsexual holding pattern rather than simply enjoying the trappings stereotypically associated with the opposite gender.

I haven't seen too many people pull off gender ambiguous, successfully. Usually the person in question comes off looking like a girly guy or a butch girl. Sure, "the look" is there however quite often there's no mistaking the gender of the person.

Why wouldn't an intersex person identify as that seeing how it's a real physical condition rather than taking on some strange sounding label that most likely doesn't apply to them or their identity ?

Some intersection people are gender queer. Some are not. Why should someones who identifies as other than male or female invalidate those who only identify as one or the other?

Stout · 17th December 2012, 06:49 AM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Some intersection people are gender queer. Some are not. Why should someones who identifies as other than male or female invalidate those who only identify as one or the other?

Because it ends up mixing a physical condition ( intersex ) with a psychological identity that flys in the face of what we've been told about transsexualism, by transsexuals, for years.

ponderingturtle · 17th December 2012, 06:54 AM

Originally Posted by Stout

Because it ends up mixing a physical condition ( intersex ) with a psychological identity that flys in the face of what we've been told about transsexualism, by transsexuals, for years.

Yep, just like bisexuals invalidate everything homosexuals have said for years. One persons reality does not invalidate someone else's.

People not fully associating with either gender does not invalidate those who identify as a gender at odds with their birth gender assignment.

People defy neat categorization.

Tsukasa Buddha · 17th December 2012, 07:10 AM

I think there is confusion here between gender expression and stereotype fitting vs gender identity going on here. But to be fair, the connection between them is confusing at the best of times.

Stout · 17th December 2012, 07:39 AM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Yep, just like bisexuals invalidate everything homosexuals have said for years. One persons reality does not invalidate someone else's.

People not fully associating with either gender does not invalidate those who identify as a gender at odds with their birth gender assignment.

People defy neat categorization.

Hummm...good point.

I guess what I'm getting at here is trying to determine whether there's a difference between identifying as genderqueer and what's commonly thought of as fetish behaviour.

ponderingturtle · 17th December 2012, 08:02 AM

Originally Posted by Stout

Hummm...good point.

I guess what I'm getting at here is trying to determine whether there's a difference between identifying as genderqueer and what's commonly thought of as fetish behaviour.

Sure, though there could be overlap. Though I guess it also depends on the fetish and how you define fetish.

The distinction I would make is this, is the person doing it for sexual gratification or because it is an expression of social identity.

Mr. Scott · 17th December 2012, 08:13 AM

Originally Posted by UnrepentantSinner

Is anyone else reminded when they read crap like this:

Unbelieving in God is thinky work, and women don’t do thinky, because ‘that’s a guy thing

from A+, FtB, Skepchic, etc, of Sarah Palin and her "hopey changie" inanity?

I still can't look away from this ongoing train wreck of A+.

It doesn't take much thinky work to just not believe in any god. But, there's not a complete overlap between atheism and skepticism. What takes all the thinky work is critical thinking, because we have to combat our instinctive impulse for cognitive dissonance, and feeling we have to win, rather than feeling we have to be correct.

The A+ loonies are in have-to-win mode, not find-the-truth mode. That's where they fall short in the thinky work.

UnrepentantSinner · 17th December 2012, 09:28 AM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Some intersection people are gender queer. Some are not. Why should someones who identifies as other than male or female invalidate those who only identify as one or the other?

What is that "other" then?

Stout · 17th December 2012, 09:29 AM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Sure, though there could be overlap. Though I guess it also depends on the fetish and how you define fetish.

The distinction I would make is this, is the person doing it for sexual gratification or because it is an expression of social identity.

That's the same distinction I'm having trouble with. Also, trying to fit genderqueer into the marginalized groups category when it seems to be something you can slip into, or out of at will.

A full on social identity I can see but if it's something that turns you on, something you only do in private or in a select group and then abandon that identity for something that's not so marginalized, is genderqueer something you want to enter into the oppression olympics ?

zeggman · 17th December 2012, 09:32 AM

Originally Posted by kellyb

Well, ok. But what looks stupid to one person might be deeply meaningful to another. I have no idea what it's like to self-identify as gender neutral. But if someone who identifies with no gender asks me to refer to them an "xe", I don't think it's ok to mock that.

I disagree. I'm not going to start using absurd terminology. I'll use the indeterminate singular "them" or "they" but "xe" is as deserving of mockery as anything I can think of. I roll my eyes every time I read it.

Others are entitled to judge my refusal to kowtow to their idiocy, but I won't let them dictate to me the language I can use.

ETA: I don't expect to ever post on an "our dogma or the highway" site, but if I did I might use "X" as a personal pronoun just because I respect our shared chromosomes.

Stout · 17th December 2012, 09:53 AM

Originally Posted by Mr. Scott

The A+ loonies are in have-to-win mode, not find-the-truth mode. That's where they fall short in the thinky work.

What I find interesting is the lengths that they'll go to to "win", these moral and ethical "superiors" of ours.

That's all part of the safe space thing. If they can't will, then they'll just take their ball and go home.

Why only last night, on one of their Connecticut shooting threads, one of their mods made a comment about "Angry white men, losing their privilege ? " while, in the same post, linking to an article that stated that the ratio between white and PoC shooters reflected the ratio between white/PoC in the general American population.

Thread

There's a word for that......

ponderingturtle · 17th December 2012, 10:25 AM

Originally Posted by Stout

That's the same distinction I'm having trouble with. Also, trying to fit genderqueer into the marginalized groups category when it seems to be something you can slip into, or out of at will.

A full on social identity I can see but if it's something that turns you on, something you only do in private or in a select group and then abandon that identity for something that's not so marginalized, is genderqueer something you want to enter into the oppression olympics ?

So how about gay people who don't always make sure everyone knows they are gay to avoid the hassle when say going shopping? How different is that from not making an issue over ones gender?

Or commingle full circle I am not out as an atheist at work. So clearly as I can slip in or out of it, atheism is not an identity and not something to be protected. This applies to most any thing really.

Stout · 17th December 2012, 11:08 AM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

So how about gay people who don't always make sure everyone knows they are gay to avoid the hassle when say going shopping? How different is that from not making an issue over ones gender?

Or commingle full circle I am not out as an atheist at work. So clearly as I can slip in or out of it, atheism is not an identity and not something to be protected. This applies to most any thing really.

OK, I see where you're going like this and I get it. It makes sense when you put it that way with being afraid to come out of "the closet" due to possible social ramifications.

I do, however, fail to see how atheist could not be an identity, if one were to choose to make it one.

For the record, I don't own an atheist t-shirt.

ponderingturtle · 17th December 2012, 11:28 AM

Originally Posted by Stout

OK, I see where you're going like this and I get it. It makes sense when you put it that way with being afraid to come out of "the closet" due to possible social ramifications.

I do, however, fail to see how atheist could not be an identity, if one were to choose to make it one.

For the record, I don't own an atheist t-shirt.

I am not claiming it isn't. I was saying that people do not bring up potentially problematic identities they have when worried about the bigotry they will face. So they don't mention or mitigate the traits that can cause this to be focused on them.

Given the rates of violence against gender non conforming individuals is that terribly surprising?

kellyb · 17th December 2012, 11:52 AM

Originally Posted by Stout

Hummm...good point.

I guess what I'm getting at here is trying to determine whether there's a difference between identifying as genderqueer and what's commonly thought of as fetish behaviour.

I've known a few genderqueer folks irl, and it was not a fetish thing with any of them. I mean, I never had sex with them, so who knows what they were/are like in the bedroom. But it's fundamentally a personal identity issue much, much more than a kink thing. Whatever sex/fetish thing that might or might not be happening is a side issue compared to their gender self-identity. (And as we all know, one need not be genderqueer to be kinky.)

Stout · 17th December 2012, 12:20 PM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

I am not claiming it isn't. I was saying that people do not bring up potentially problematic identities they have when worried about the bigotry they will face. So they don't mention or mitigate the traits that can cause this to be focused on them.

Given the rates of violence against gender non conforming individuals is that terribly surprising?

Well, I can't quibble with any of that.

damn......

Stout · 17th December 2012, 12:28 PM

Originally Posted by kellyb

I've known a few genderqueer folks irl, and it was not a fetish thing with any of them. I mean, I never had sex with them, so who knows what they were/are like in the bedroom. But it's fundamentally a personal identity issue much, much more than a kink thing. Whatever sex/fetish thing that might or might not be happening is a side issue compared to their gender self-identity. (And as we all know, one need not be genderqueer to be kinky.)

Interesting.

I've never met any myself, other than in passing. The one I did know, this gay guy who was so stereotypically gay that his gay roommates referred to him as "too faggy" ended up becoming a full meal deal transsexual.

So scratch the fetishization of the trappings thing and rethink it as just another one of those ideas I'll just have to take on faith as being serious enough to warrant having an identity around.

The Central Scrutinizer · 17th December 2012, 12:31 PM

Originally Posted by brodski

This just makes me wonder what is wrong with "them".

Hater.

16th December 2012, 01:49 AM	#2201
kellyb Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Tennessee. Ain't you jealous? Posts: 4,473	Originally Posted by Wildy I think it's because the invented pronouns look stupid. Well, ok. But what looks stupid to one person might be deeply meaningful to another. I have no idea what it's like to self-identify as gender neutral. But if someone who identifies with no gender asks me to refer to them an "xe", I don't think it's ok to mock that.
	__________________ The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell

16th December 2012, 01:57 AM	#2203
kellyb Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Tennessee. Ain't you jealous? Posts: 4,473	Originally Posted by Mashuna I'm pretty sure that all pronouns are invented. Totally.
	__________________ The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell

16th December 2012, 06:12 AM	#2205
The Man Scourge, of the supernatural Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Poughkeepsie, NY Posts: 7,579	Originally Posted by brodski This just makes me wonder what is wrong with "them". Because it helps to perpetuate an "us" or "them" mentality, which of course they (A+) just can't have. Unless of course that "us" is, well, just "them".
	__________________ "Not a seat but a springboard” (1942 Winston Churchill) "As he who, seeking asses, found a kingdom" (1671 Milton "Paradise Regained") "for it seem'd A void was made in nature, all her bonds Crack'd; and I saw the flaring atom-streams And torrents of her myriad universe, Ruining along the illimitable inane, Fly on to clash together again, and make Another and another frame of things For ever." (1868 Tennyson "Lucretius")

16th December 2012, 07:12 AM	#2208
Foolmewunz Grammar Resistance Leader Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Pattaya, Thailand Posts: 20,890	Originally Posted by kellyb Well, ok. But what looks stupid to one person might be deeply meaningful to another. I have no idea what it's like to self-identify as gender neutral. But if someone who identifies with no gender asks me to refer to them an "xe", I don't think it's ok to mock that. I'm not mocking a person who asked to be referred to as "xe", I'm mocking the PC police in that thread rushing in with the trendy correction. If whomever the poster was referring to had specifically responded with a request to be called "xe" or "mugwump", it might be worthy of consideration, but it looks to me as though this is a movement to replace any instance where one might use he/she, e.g. not knowing the gender of the person who they are addressing or speaking of, and change that to xe. Correct me if I'm wrong. Is it only to be used for specifically those who identify as non-gendered(if that's the right term)? Or is it, as it appears to be heading, a movement to replace genderfied personal pronouns with xe?
	__________________ Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele Don't you wish someone had slapped baby Hitler really really hard? [i] Dr. Buzzo 02/13 [i]

16th December 2012, 08:12 AM	#2209
Hillbert New Blood Join Date: Aug 2012 Posts: 13	Originally Posted by kellyb Well, ok. But what looks stupid to one person might be deeply meaningful to another. I have no idea what it's like to self-identify as gender neutral. But if someone who identifies with no gender asks me to refer to them an "xe", I don't think it's ok to mock that. I think part of the problem occurs when it's a new word with no immediate and obvious derivation, and then people get arsey about it being used in the incorrect way. It also happens with words like "racism" which have a slightly different meaning in the social justice regime. Which always leads to the "only white people can be racist" kerfuffle. Although I think xe and xir are less problematic than something like a redefinition of racism as xe/xir were never words to start with. But yeah, in general if it takes a new word or two to make someone happier with themselves and their own self-identification then fair enough, it's a small (practically non existent) price.
Hillbert New Blood Join Date: Aug 2012 Posts: 13

16th December 2012, 01:53 AM	#2202
Mashuna Ovis ex Machina Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Welsh Wales Posts: 6,589	Originally Posted by Wildy I think it's because the invented pronouns look stupid. I'm pretty sure that all pronouns are invented.

16th December 2012, 05:19 AM	#2204
WillyWonka Thinker Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: The Great White North Posts: 158	Originally Posted by kellyb Well, ok. But what looks stupid to one person might be deeply meaningful to another. I have no idea what it's like to self-identify as gender neutral. But if someone who identifies with no gender asks me to refer to them an "xe", I don't think it's ok to mock that. Unfortunately, languages do not work this way, as to invent words for a very selected group of people, then expect that the population will fully understand its meaning. Besides, this is absolutely English-centric, as this pattern creating would make absolutely no sense in other languages, as in French for example.

16th December 2012, 06:46 AM	#2206
Stout Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Canada Posts: 2,008	Originally Posted by Wildy I think it's because the invented pronouns look stupid. Yes, they do look stupid but I'm willing to overlook that fact if I can use them in Scrabble to get the X or Z on one of those points lucrative spaces. I too have no idea what it's like to identify "somewhere" on the gender spectrum. For years we've had transsexuals telling us that they were born in the wrong body and want to identify/be identified with as the opposite gender. Fair enough. But genderqueer ? WTF ? Your kinda sorta man, your kinda sorta woman, whatever you feel like when you wake up in the morning ? You're a truck driver wearing jeans, cowboy boots, a t-shirt with Cat Diesel on it and a baseball cap with Freightliner emblazoned on it by day and you dress up as a French maid on the weekends ? This is a "thing" now ? Something other than a fetish or a bad fashion sense ?

16th December 2012, 07:03 AM	#2207
Stout Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Canada Posts: 2,008	Here's the latest from A+watch Something as simple as asking for input whether APlusser's support legal restrictions on "freeze peach" as they like to call it is enough to crank up the rant machine. Curious though, as most of their more, errrrrrr, emotional posters are Canadian and have to be thinking that the poster who posed the question probably had something like this in mind when they made their query. Thread....Couple of general Questions About A+ It's now a bannable offense to not take one of Grimalkin's profanity and insult laden rant's seriously. Thread. That place is an embarrassment to Atheists.

16th December 2012, 08:29 AM	#2210
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,557	Originally Posted by kellyb Well, ok. But what looks stupid to one person might be deeply meaningful to another. I have no idea what it's like to self-identify as gender neutral. But if someone who identifies with no gender asks me to refer to them an "xe", I don't think it's ok to mock that. They totally need to reach out to the otherkin community. Forcing fairies, vampires, werewolves, and pokemon to identify as human is human privilege.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

16th December 2012, 08:51 AM	#2211
Wildy Adelaidean Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Australia, not that you'll read the "location" field. Posts: 9,953	Originally Posted by kellyb Well, ok. But what looks stupid to one person might be deeply meaningful to another. I have no idea what it's like to self-identify as gender neutral. But if someone who identifies with no gender asks me to refer to them an "xe", I don't think it's ok to mock that. Foolmewunz made a pretty good point just then. It wasn't the genderqueer person who asked to be referred to as either the singular "they" or some other stupider sounding pronoun but a mod. Originally Posted by Mashuna I'm pretty sure that all pronouns are invented. Sigh... Originally Posted by Stout Yes, they do look stupid but I'm willing to overlook that fact if I can use them in Scrabble to get the X or Z on one of those points lucrative spaces. I forgot about that possibility. The problem would be trying to convince your opponent that those stupid words are actually words. Quote: But genderqueer ? WTF ? Your kinda sorta man, your kinda sorta woman, whatever you feel like when you wake up in the morning ? You're a truck driver wearing jeans, cowboy boots, a t-shirt with Cat Diesel on it and a baseball cap with Freightliner emblazoned on it by day and you dress up as a French maid on the weekends ? This is a "thing" now ? Something other than a fetish or a bad fashion sense ? From a quick look it seems that "genderqueer" is a catch all term for a bunch of different circumstances. So a Fa'afafine would be most likely be considered "genderqueer". But then I'd assume that would cause some strange paradox among certain social justice people because they would be forcing Western cultural standards upon a non-Western culture.
	__________________ Latest Blog Posts:Atheism+ More Atheism+ stuff

16th December 2012, 02:15 PM	#2212
s_pepys Muse Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 554	m shermer vs o benson. http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/12-12-12/ lxxx
s_pepys Muse Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 554

16th December 2012, 08:58 PM	#2213
UnrepentantSinner A post by Alan Smithee Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: USAian is not a word Posts: 26,446	Originally Posted by s_pepys m shermer vs o benson. http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/12-12-12/ lxxx Is anyone else reminded when they read crap like this: Unbelieving in God is thinky work, and women don’t do thinky, because ‘that’s a guy thing from A+, FtB, Skepchic, etc, of Sarah Palin and her "hopey changie" inanity?
	__________________ I am an American citizen who is part of American society and briefly served in the American armed forces. I use American dollars and pay taxes that support the American government. And yes, despite the editorial decison to change American politics to the nonsensical "USA politics" subforum, I follow and comment on American politics.

16th December 2012, 10:02 PM	#2214
kellyb Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Tennessee. Ain't you jealous? Posts: 4,473	Originally Posted by Stout Yes, they do look stupid but I'm willing to overlook that fact if I can use them in Scrabble to get the X or Z on one of those points lucrative spaces. I too have no idea what it's like to identify "somewhere" on the gender spectrum. For years we've had transsexuals telling us that they were born in the wrong body and want to identify/be identified with as the opposite gender. Fair enough. But genderqueer ? WTF ? Your kinda sorta man, your kinda sorta woman, whatever you feel like when you wake up in the morning ? You're a truck driver wearing jeans, cowboy boots, a t-shirt with Cat Diesel on it and a baseball cap with Freightliner emblazoned on it by day and you dress up as a French maid on the weekends ? This is a "thing" now ? Something other than a fetish or a bad fashion sense ? Sort of, but not exactly. There's a whole swath of the population that feels ambiguous about their gender. If you see gender as a spectrum, they're somewhere in the middle. I'm not genderqueer, myself. So, I don't know if it's appropriate for me to speak on their behalf. If you really want to understand it further, you can just ask some of them what's up. I can say a couple of things with some certainty, tho: 1) some of these folks are totally ok with their bodies and have no intentions of ever becoming more male or female. They're fine with always being gender ambiguous with the plumbing/body they were born with. 2) some are in the process of becoming the "other" gender, and will eventually probably self-identify as strongly male or female, he/she. According to some definitions, at least 1% of the population is literally, physically intersex: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex I don't know what % of the genderqueer folks are intersex. I'd guess some are and some aren't. And I don't think it matters. If someone has, say, outdoor male plumbing but just feels kind of female, who am I to argue? What does it matter how they dress?
	__________________ The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell

16th December 2012, 10:44 PM	#2215
UnrepentantSinner A post by Alan Smithee Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: USAian is not a word Posts: 26,446	Originally Posted by kellyb What's funny about gender-neutral pronouns when referring to gender-neutral people? {personal opinion} There are no gender-neutral people. There are intergendered people, but no one is lacking in gender IMO. {/personal opinion}
	__________________ I am an American citizen who is part of American society and briefly served in the American armed forces. I use American dollars and pay taxes that support the American government. And yes, despite the editorial decison to change American politics to the nonsensical "USA politics" subforum, I follow and comment on American politics.

16th December 2012, 11:01 PM	#2216
kellyb Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Tennessee. Ain't you jealous? Posts: 4,473	Originally Posted by UnrepentantSinner {personal opinion} There are no gender-neutral people. There are intergendered people, but no one is lacking in gender IMO. {/personal opinion} I'm cool with that idea.
	__________________ The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell

17th December 2012, 01:58 AM	#2217
UnrepentantSinner A post by Alan Smithee Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: USAian is not a word Posts: 26,446	Originally Posted by s_pepys m shermer vs o benson. http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/12-12-12/ lxxx I've been reading the comments and there's been some humorous headbutting between the FTB/A+/Skepchick cultists and rational skeptics. Funny how the #FTBullies don't spew as much invective when they can't delete posts and ban commentators they don't like.
	__________________ I am an American citizen who is part of American society and briefly served in the American armed forces. I use American dollars and pay taxes that support the American government. And yes, despite the editorial decison to change American politics to the nonsensical "USA politics" subforum, I follow and comment on American politics.

17th December 2012, 03:07 AM	#2218
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,557	Originally Posted by UnrepentantSinner {personal opinion} There are no gender-neutral people. There are intergendered people, but no one is lacking in gender IMO. {/personal opinion} I don't know. I have a friend who identifies as non gendered. He feels some degree of disphoria over having genitals. I don't know why I feel that this should be taken seriously and yet would take issue with otherkin and wouldn't take them seriously. Both are identities.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

17th December 2012, 04:10 AM	#2219
UnrepentantSinner A post by Alan Smithee Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: USAian is not a word Posts: 26,446	Originally Posted by ponderingturtle I don't know. I have a friend who identifies as non gendered. He feels some degree of disphoria over having genitals. That sounds, to my laymans ears, like a larger psychological issue than gender disphoria. Not judging and what do I know though. :shrug: Originally Posted by ponderingturtle I don't know why I feel that this should be taken seriously and yet would take issue with otherkin and wouldn't take them seriously. Both are identities. Because people with gender identity issues, be they genetic, physical or psychological exist, while otherkins don't.
	__________________ I am an American citizen who is part of American society and briefly served in the American armed forces. I use American dollars and pay taxes that support the American government. And yes, despite the editorial decison to change American politics to the nonsensical "USA politics" subforum, I follow and comment on American politics.

17th December 2012, 05:39 AM	#2220
arthwollipot Observer of Phenomena Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: The other side of your screen Posts: 43,244	Originally Posted by UnrepentantSinner Because people with gender identity issues, be they genetic, physical or psychological exist, while otherkins don't. Yeah, they do. They generally don't let on though, because of the reactions they get.
	__________________ Jadey (in RvB game thread): I just want to take a moment to commend Arth on his role as Parasitic Alien Tumor. I think he really connected with the character and there were times when I forgot that he was just acting. That's the kind of talent that you can't teach.

17th December 2012, 05:56 AM	#2221
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,557	Originally Posted by arthwollipot Yeah, they do. They generally don't let on though, because of the reactions they get. Now we need to define exist.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

17th December 2012, 06:30 AM	#2222
Stout Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Canada Posts: 2,008	Originally Posted by kellyb Sort of, but not exactly. There's a whole swath of the population that feels ambiguous about their gender. If you see gender as a spectrum, they're somewhere in the middle. I'm not genderqueer, myself. So, I don't know if it's appropriate for me to speak on their behalf. If you really want to understand it further, you can just ask some of them what's up. I can say a couple of things with some certainty, tho: 1) some of these folks are totally ok with their bodies and have no intentions of ever becoming more male or female. They're fine with always being gender ambiguous with the plumbing/body they were born with. 2) some are in the process of becoming the "other" gender, and will eventually probably self-identify as strongly male or female, he/she. According to some definitions, at least 1% of the population is literally, physically intersex: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex I don't know what % of the genderqueer folks are intersex. I'd guess some are and some aren't. And I don't think it matters. If someone has, say, outdoor male plumbing but just feels kind of female, who am I to argue? What does it matter how they dress? Cheers kellyb I guess the problems I having are reconciling the idea that there's any real spectrum of gender with the whole idea of "being born in the wrong body" I'd try to see genderqueer as a sort of pre-transsexual holding pattern rather than simply enjoying the trappings stereotypically associated with the opposite gender. I haven't seen too many people pull off gender ambiguous, successfully. Usually the person in question comes off looking like a girly guy or a butch girl. Sure, "the look" is there however quite often there's no mistaking the gender of the person. Why wouldn't an intersex person identify as that seeing how it's a real physical condition rather than taking on some strange sounding label that most likely doesn't apply to them or their identity ?

17th December 2012, 06:36 AM	#2223
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,557	Originally Posted by Stout Cheers kellyb I guess the problems I having are reconciling the idea that there's any real spectrum of gender with the whole idea of "being born in the wrong body" I'd try to see genderqueer as a sort of pre-transsexual holding pattern rather than simply enjoying the trappings stereotypically associated with the opposite gender. I haven't seen too many people pull off gender ambiguous, successfully. Usually the person in question comes off looking like a girly guy or a butch girl. Sure, "the look" is there however quite often there's no mistaking the gender of the person. Why wouldn't an intersex person identify as that seeing how it's a real physical condition rather than taking on some strange sounding label that most likely doesn't apply to them or their identity ? Some intersection people are gender queer. Some are not. Why should someones who identifies as other than male or female invalidate those who only identify as one or the other?
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

17th December 2012, 06:49 AM	#2224
Stout Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Canada Posts: 2,008	Originally Posted by ponderingturtle Some intersection people are gender queer. Some are not. Why should someones who identifies as other than male or female invalidate those who only identify as one or the other? Because it ends up mixing a physical condition ( intersex ) with a psychological identity that flys in the face of what we've been told about transsexualism, by transsexuals, for years.

17th December 2012, 06:54 AM	#2225
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,557	Originally Posted by Stout Because it ends up mixing a physical condition ( intersex ) with a psychological identity that flys in the face of what we've been told about transsexualism, by transsexuals, for years. Yep, just like bisexuals invalidate everything homosexuals have said for years. One persons reality does not invalidate someone else's. People not fully associating with either gender does not invalidate those who identify as a gender at odds with their birth gender assignment. People defy neat categorization.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

17th December 2012, 07:10 AM	#2226
Tsukasa Buddha Other (please write in) Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: NeverLand Posts: 10,036	I think there is confusion here between gender expression and stereotype fitting vs gender identity going on here. But to be fair, the connection between them is confusing at the best of times.
	__________________ As cultural anthropologists have always said "human culture" = "human nature". You might as well put a fish on the moon to test how it "swims naturally" without the "influence of water". -Earthborn

17th December 2012, 07:39 AM	#2227
Stout Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Canada Posts: 2,008	Originally Posted by ponderingturtle Yep, just like bisexuals invalidate everything homosexuals have said for years. One persons reality does not invalidate someone else's. People not fully associating with either gender does not invalidate those who identify as a gender at odds with their birth gender assignment. People defy neat categorization. Hummm...good point. I guess what I'm getting at here is trying to determine whether there's a difference between identifying as genderqueer and what's commonly thought of as fetish behaviour.

17th December 2012, 08:02 AM	#2228
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,557	Originally Posted by Stout Hummm...good point. I guess what I'm getting at here is trying to determine whether there's a difference between identifying as genderqueer and what's commonly thought of as fetish behaviour. Sure, though there could be overlap. Though I guess it also depends on the fetish and how you define fetish. The distinction I would make is this, is the person doing it for sexual gratification or because it is an expression of social identity.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

17th December 2012, 08:13 AM	#2229
Mr. Scott Under the Amazing One's Wing Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: USA Posts: 2,313	Originally Posted by UnrepentantSinner Is anyone else reminded when they read crap like this: Unbelieving in God is thinky work, and women don’t do thinky, because ‘that’s a guy thing from A+, FtB, Skepchic, etc, of Sarah Palin and her "hopey changie" inanity? I still can't look away from this ongoing train wreck of A+. It doesn't take much thinky work to just not believe in any god. But, there's not a complete overlap between atheism and skepticism. What takes all the thinky work is critical thinking, because we have to combat our instinctive impulse for cognitive dissonance, and feeling we have to win, rather than feeling we have to be correct. The A+ loonies are in have-to-win mode, not find-the-truth mode. That's where they fall short in the thinky work.
	__________________ "thhere's waaaay too much colonialism and white supremacy in our culture to even THINK about addressing the religion of brown people, the end." A+ Global Moderator ceepolk, Dec. 9, 2012 Last edited by Mr. Scott; 17th December 2012 at 08:18 AM. Reason: cognitive dissonance reference corrected

17th December 2012, 09:28 AM	#2230
UnrepentantSinner A post by Alan Smithee Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: USAian is not a word Posts: 26,446	Originally Posted by ponderingturtle Some intersection people are gender queer. Some are not. Why should someones who identifies as other than male or female invalidate those who only identify as one or the other? What is that "other" then?
	__________________ I am an American citizen who is part of American society and briefly served in the American armed forces. I use American dollars and pay taxes that support the American government. And yes, despite the editorial decison to change American politics to the nonsensical "USA politics" subforum, I follow and comment on American politics.

17th December 2012, 09:29 AM	#2231
Stout Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Canada Posts: 2,008	Originally Posted by ponderingturtle Sure, though there could be overlap. Though I guess it also depends on the fetish and how you define fetish. The distinction I would make is this, is the person doing it for sexual gratification or because it is an expression of social identity. That's the same distinction I'm having trouble with. Also, trying to fit genderqueer into the marginalized groups category when it seems to be something you can slip into, or out of at will. A full on social identity I can see but if it's something that turns you on, something you only do in private or in a select group and then abandon that identity for something that's not so marginalized, is genderqueer something you want to enter into the oppression olympics ?

17th December 2012, 09:32 AM	#2232
zeggman Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 1,788	Originally Posted by kellyb Well, ok. But what looks stupid to one person might be deeply meaningful to another. I have no idea what it's like to self-identify as gender neutral. But if someone who identifies with no gender asks me to refer to them an "xe", I don't think it's ok to mock that. I disagree. I'm not going to start using absurd terminology. I'll use the indeterminate singular "them" or "they" but "xe" is as deserving of mockery as anything I can think of. I roll my eyes every time I read it. Others are entitled to judge my refusal to kowtow to their idiocy, but I won't let them dictate to me the language I can use. ETA: I don't expect to ever post on an "our dogma or the highway" site, but if I did I might use "X" as a personal pronoun just because I respect our shared chromosomes.
zeggman Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 1,788	Last edited by zeggman; 17th December 2012 at 09:47 AM.

17th December 2012, 09:53 AM	#2233
Stout Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Canada Posts: 2,008	Originally Posted by Mr. Scott The A+ loonies are in have-to-win mode, not find-the-truth mode. That's where they fall short in the thinky work. What I find interesting is the lengths that they'll go to to "win", these moral and ethical "superiors" of ours. That's all part of the safe space thing. If they can't will, then they'll just take their ball and go home. Why only last night, on one of their Connecticut shooting threads, one of their mods made a comment about "Angry white men, losing their privilege ? " while, in the same post, linking to an article that stated that the ratio between white and PoC shooters reflected the ratio between white/PoC in the general American population. Thread There's a word for that......

17th December 2012, 10:25 AM	#2234
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,557	Originally Posted by Stout That's the same distinction I'm having trouble with. Also, trying to fit genderqueer into the marginalized groups category when it seems to be something you can slip into, or out of at will. A full on social identity I can see but if it's something that turns you on, something you only do in private or in a select group and then abandon that identity for something that's not so marginalized, is genderqueer something you want to enter into the oppression olympics ? So how about gay people who don't always make sure everyone knows they are gay to avoid the hassle when say going shopping? How different is that from not making an issue over ones gender? Or commingle full circle I am not out as an atheist at work. So clearly as I can slip in or out of it, atheism is not an identity and not something to be protected. This applies to most any thing really.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

17th December 2012, 11:08 AM	#2235
Stout Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Canada Posts: 2,008	Originally Posted by ponderingturtle So how about gay people who don't always make sure everyone knows they are gay to avoid the hassle when say going shopping? How different is that from not making an issue over ones gender? Or commingle full circle I am not out as an atheist at work. So clearly as I can slip in or out of it, atheism is not an identity and not something to be protected. This applies to most any thing really. OK, I see where you're going like this and I get it. It makes sense when you put it that way with being afraid to come out of "the closet" due to possible social ramifications. I do, however, fail to see how atheist could not be an identity, if one were to choose to make it one. For the record, I don't own an atheist t-shirt.