I don’t know if anyone has argued it because it hasn’t really come up, but I can imagine someone saying the questioner is transphobic because they aren’t onboard with a gender-neutral person using both gender-specific and gender-neutral pronouns. Or even someone using cross-gender pronouns (e.g. a man who prefers to use she). With regards to the subject of this thread, it seems like it’s part of the debate about what gender someone self-identifies as. Should that person also use pronouns consistent with their gender identity?
Sorry about that. I thought that is what I read.
Currently Wiki says
Page publicly came out as a gay woman in February 2014 and subsequently as transgender in December 2020, announcing his new name as Elliot Page.
So I will go with that for now.
…why does this need to be “part of any debate?”
Page does use pronouns consistent with their gender identity. I accept that its confusing. But there is actually nothing to debate here, only something that needs to be explained.
To make things clearer, Transgender is an umbrella term for having “a gender identity or gender expression that differs from the sex that they were assigned at birth.” From the wiki:
This is a lot to take in. I’m still learning, I still make mistakes, and plenty of people (including myself) made the same initial assumptions about Page.
Guin, Eve’s here? Where?
Eve, while I assume I was one of those who drove you away inadvertantly, check out Before week. Hillbilly Dorothy Parker or a modern Fannie Flagg.
,
I mean Beckdawrek.
Is there a reason why they wouldn’t?
Funny you should mention that.
What What said. 
Just found this thread, glad it’s being discussed. Kind of ashamed at the history of transphobia and trans-not-really-getting-it on the board, and…hey, Eve dropped in! So good to hear from you!
Handy hint: I’m not on any social at all… except for this. I’ve been actually posting since i retired “to spend more quality time with ‘Dad’s Make-Believe Smarty-Pants Internet Friends’…”
Hope you’ll have more time in the future!
I have several thoughts having read the whole thread over 2 days and the second half just now. This is not a coherent essay, more a collection of ideas. I am not up on correct terminology so I will tread as lightly is possible. Please understand any perceived misuse of terminology is no more than that; not a failure of goodwill or of interest in accuracy.
At this stage of the game ISTM the terminology is very non-standardized. Traditional thinkers use the traditional terms in the traditional way, maybe not caring (and sometimes not even knowing) they've grown new meanings. The various interest communities have their own sets of terms and often don't use the the same term in the same way between them.
What exactly is the grab bag of attributes that constitutes a “man”? Or perhaps more controversially or at least more sensitively, a “woman”? How many of the attributes are must-have, which are optional, and is there a widely agreed term for any given combination of how ever many dimensions this beast has? Which attributes are widely agreed to be binary (as in any individual either has it or doesn’t, not in the sense of there are only two whatever-types in the population, period.) and which are agreed to be found in various individuals in umpteen shades of gray?
I know I don’t know. Wiki for one has some answers, and I do NOT claim that’s anything close to definitive or “widely agreed”. Whatever the source(s) say, they are incomplete and undergoing revision as society rewrites the script. Heck, which interest groups are legitimately allowed to even be part of the “wide” who agree? And which are disallowed or ignored?
All the above makes failures to communicate all but certain. And readily leads to True Scotsmen arguments or one-upmanship that has never in the history of the Earth improved a discussion.
Until the terminology settles down a bit, we will have innocent failures to communicate and we will have malicious attempts to hide behind an “innocent failure to communicate”.
I like **Max**'s general approach to concretize these things, but he's trying a little too hard at applying formal logic to a sociological problem. The edges aren't sharp enough and everything is too squishy for that. Try as one might to enumerate the 4 distinct non-overlapped exhaustive possibilities, more crap leaks in under the door.
A specific example:
@MrDibble is 100% right as a formal process of formal logic. @Max_S is right at least as to the sordid history of US behavior to minorities of all natures. And I’d suggest the sordid history of lots of humans everywhere at all times including the reasonable future.
“Separate but equal” might well be separate but given actual human nature involving a privileged class and a non-privileged class, it sure as heck won’t be equal.
In the law they have the concept of a difference and a distinction. Loosely speaking since IANA lawyer, a distinction is anything you can use to identify one thing from another. A difference is a distinction that matters. Quibbling is the art of trying to raise a distinction to the level of a difference.
When a distinction can be mislabeled as a difference, that invites using the distinction as an excuse for disparate treatment. Because after all, if there is a difference, then disparate treatment has some logical basis. Scientific racism stands very carefully with malice aforethought on this very quibble.
The desire not to permit distinctions flows from the very real history of distinctions leading to invidious pseudo-differences leading to all manner of horrors.
I can't begin to do justice to @Spice_Weasel's well reasoned, obviously knowledgeable, and ultimately well-intentioned posts. All I can say is Thank You.
Misandry is one of the several toxic ingredients in the unholy stew we (current society) has brewed about individual sex, gender, identification, transitions mental, physical, or social, and all the rest. Plus what that all means in this group setting we call “society”.
IMO it’s one ingredient that often dares not speak its name. Unfortunately, as long as it remains a hidden force, it will divide, as @Spice_Weasel tells us, the True Scotsmen of the women from birth from the supposedly-not-quite-good-enough Scotsmen who are not that sort.
Said another way, it seems like as each new group develops a group consciousness they want to split off and differentiate from their nearest ally and often end up at each other’s throats over every tinier issues. Monty Python’s bit with the Peoples’ Judean Front hating the People’s Front of Judea was funny precisely because of how true it is. Human group nature is a bitch.
Everybody should have their equal place in the sun. But playing crabs-in-a-bucket just leaves the bucket-owner (traditionalist / reactionary cis society) holding all the crabs down.
I don't want to end on a contentious note, or make it sound like this whole speech was to mansplain how misandry is soooo awful and men are sooo put upon. Totally the opposite. but I'm late starting dinner for family coming. So I'm out.
In all this whole topic which has grown from Max’s OP is very interesting. I fear we will have a very hard time reliably doing the right thing in threads in the wild given the polarized nature of the anti’s out there.
But I think we can give it a try. Don’t be a jerk works almost everywhere for almost everything. Imagine a planet with zero jerky humans on it. Imagine Paradise. As to SDMB, we need to lay out some topic-specific definitions of “jerk” and then promptly hammer the uncooperative.
I think it’s easier if there is consistency. Consider these situations:
- My name is John. I’m a man. I use the pronoun he
- My name is John. I’m a man. I use the pronoun she
- My name is John. I’m a woman. I use the pronoun he
- My name is John. I’m a woman. I use the pronouns she
I will support whatever John wants, but I think it’s worthy of discussion about how it’s generally less confusing if there is consistency between name, identity and pronouns. Maybe that won’t always be the case, but it’s certainly going to be an issue today.
I’ll admit I made the mistake of assuming Elliot was a transman when I first saw the article. I was just browsing the headlines on front page of CNN and from the blurb took away that Page was trans and used the pronouns he/him. I would assume many people also had the same takeaway I did. It was only from the thread here about him that I saw the clarification about him being transgendered rather than a transman. I’m not sure that many people will understand the difference and I expect this kind of confusion to be widespread. I guess this is all part of the learning process, but I think at this point in time that kind of confusion needs to be taken as expected and not a sign of transphobia.
Except females are increasingly being given male names. Ashley. Payton. Harley. A woman introducing herself as Michael might really be a Michael from birth as a female (in the top 1000 every year for girls from 1960 to 1994).
I’m not saying people won’t stumble, it’s human nature, just like if your cousin June decides to legally change her name to Cassandra you’re going to stumble a few times, but eh, if someone introduces themself as Robert and looks like Connie Stevens and during chitchat after that says please refer to him as he, yeah, I’m going to. None of my business.
In fact, we recently had a security guard who started transitioning female to male while working at my job. “Tom” never said at any point which pronoun to use so I just skipped using it and either used Tom or security. If you’re wondering why I didn’t ask, well, Tom irritated the Hell out of me. Rarely did security things like handle noise complaints or do the rounds of the property. Preferred to hide in the office or try to have conversations with me while I’m trying to work - including while trying to check in guests. Luckily for Tom, Tom found a different job before Tom got canned for incompetence.
This is a fixable problem. Maybe dump everything downstream of the Politics forum.
“What, What, Wat?” King Pellinore.
Oh wow, I go away for a few days and find this thread when I return… I have been running a virtual social event for ~70 people this weekend. About 6 of those people are trans, by the way, (including my partner-in-crime, who helps run this event) so I do have some familiarity with trans issues.
I identify as a straight cis woman, fwiw. (I also identify as a Jew.)
I am still a very new mod, and I don’t moderate for forums where these issues usually get ugly (great debates, P&E) and while I want to do my part as a trans ally, I also don’t want to overstep my role.
Also:
I think this is really relevant. Trans issues are still very new to a lot of people. Sadly, I think a certain amount of discussion is appropriate, even though I recognize that that discussion can be extremely tiring to my friends.
This is a really good observation, and I think it’s worth remembering.
This is a great post.
Anyway, I would love to make this a safer and friendlier place. I also would love the opportunity to educate people about trans issues. Those two conflict, at least a little. I hope the mods can come up with some clearer rules on the topic.
I would really like to work on some proposed new rules to make the SDMB feel like a safer place. I’m hoping we can come up with some new guidance and rules that will do so. But I’m pretty ignorant on most of the issues and am learning a lot just in this thread.
Humans are messy biological creatures and language will never be sufficiently precise to capture all attributes of each individual human that existed or will exist. Broad categories such as man and woman are useful so often that engaging in what is actually tautological serves what purpose? We have brains governed by biology which in turn is governed by physics and these brains don’t always perceive the same thing the same way. Why should one perception be given more respect over another’s perception? Now, out of politeness one an argument can be made that one should address folks as they wish but you can’t demand of others to perceive reality as you perceive it.
The rules as they existed worked fine. Contentious issues are going to be contentious. In debates about human biology, no one is forced to read or participate. Of course all such matters could be ‘resolved’ and further discussion banned by mod fiat though.
That might be your opinion. Believe it or not, we might not agree with your opinion.
On the other hand, it is possible nothing will change.
Not agree with my opinion? I believe it!
I just think you can’t reconcile the two different visions of this place at least in P&E and Great Debates. The nature of those two forums, unless they are neutered completely and become farcical, means contentious issues ranging from infanticide, euthanasia, discussions of war, genetic engineering, the value of human life, etc. are going to be debated from different sets of unresolvable moral axioms.