“Man” and “woman” are terms invented by humans to describe biological categories. Those two specific words date back to the twelfth century - the concepts they refer to, obviously, are much, much older. The biological categories they describe evolved over (if I’m reading this wiki page correctly) one billion and two hundred fifty million years.
You really think folks back in 1100 had a solid handle on every possible permutation of that process? We’re talking about people who hadn’t yet figured out they should wash their hands after wiping their ass. They were wrong about virtually every other aspect of biology. But sexual differentation - that one, you figure, they just had nailed down?
Dude, enough with the hyperbole (“wash after wipe”, seriously). Manning can call him/herself whatever she wants. Its should be no different than how she spells her name; again with qualifiers when confusion is possible.
Here is another example for another well know transitioner.
**Caitlyn Jenner is an Olympic gold medalis*t
*Bruce Jenner (now known as Caitlyn Jenner) won Gold in the Decathlon at the Montreal Games
*Decathalon Gold History
1972: Mykola Avilov-USSR
1976: Bruce Jenner-USA
1980: Daley Thomson-GB
Incidentally, Wikipedia had a meltdown over how to describe…Jenner…in their article on 1976 Olympics. Here is the talk page.
You can hold that belief if you want, but from what I’m reading in this thread Shodan is using the incorrect pronoun not because of what you’re saying but purely and for no other reason whatsoever than to disrespect the person in question.
Think of something that you hold near and dear to your core, something that really doesn’t have anything to do with other people (at least WRT to the issue at hand) and imagine I decided to say ‘welp, you got a speeding ticket, so I don’t have to respect that wish anymore’. For example, if I was a journalist and ran headlines saying “Grumman, Democrat, gets 2-5 years for shoplifting” or “Grumman, Gay, plows through bus stop 2nd time in 2 months”.
Nothing wrong with being democrat or gay, but if you’re not, you might take offense. You might take even more offense if you find out that I did it not because I don’t feel you’re allowed to be a democrat or that I don’t think gays exist but specifically as an insult and even more so, because I knew that you would be really, really offended by it.
Perhaps Shodan would feel differently if he was accused of a crime and was subjected to some lack of ‘common decency’. However, in Shodan’s case (and I’m guessingyour’s), both in how they’re worded, it it’s not so much of a ‘they’re criminals, screw’em’. It’s just a thinly veiled way to fling insults at a minority group you don’t like while thinking that it’s justified.
I’m sure we could come up with plenty of other examples of ways that people define themselves that the most people have no issues using when referring to them (political, race, occupation, sport team loyalty, etc). Why do you feel that being accused of a crime is justification for using the opposite term?
And, for the love of god, if you you don’t want to use the ‘opposite’ gender term, ‘they’ is always acceptable as a gender neutral term. “They were accused of a war crime”, “they got a speeding ticket yesterday”, “they work at Dairy Queen”. To go out of your way to be insulting is…I don’t even know…I guess it says something about you.
That’s pretty much it. Once one decides that “he does deserve it”, then anything goes. A person’s name is fundamental to who he is-- who he sees himself as. We would all, presumably, chafe at the idea that someone could enter our lives and decree that our names are from now on to be something other than what they are. But it would’t be so bad if we did it someone who “deserved it”, would it?
There is no argument on Wikipedia over what pronoun to use with Jenner now, and the article on Manning starts, “Chelsea Elizabeth Manning[5] (born Bradley Edward Manning, December 17, 1987)” and goes on to refer to her as “she.”
**Shodan **knows perfectly well what he’s doing is wrong.
He could argue that, but it doesn’t change the fact that attacking Manning’s gender identity is going to be interpreted as insulting by most trans people. It’s kind of like saying, “I only called him a nigger because I knew it would piss him off.”
“Once one decides he deserves it, anything goes,” is exactly the opposite of what I’m saying.
I do not see how misgendering is different from using a slur. Both have to do with how certain words have been used to discriminate. And, since we don’t call bad black people “niggers,” we shouldn’t misgender bad people.
And, if we really look at it, if you can misgender one person, then you clearly don’t accept that trans people are their preferred gender. You still see, for example, trans women as being men, but think you’re doing some sort of courtesy by “allowing” them to go by their preferred pronoun.
That may be better than intolerance, but it’s still not good or right. And, no, appealing to the Bible won’t help, since God never says “And if they have a penis, they are men.” Male and female are never defined in the Bible.
Yes, it’s not a great intellectual challenge is it? We already have the convention to use “nee” when referring to a maiden name in situations where clarification is needed. Seeing as it pretty much means “previously named” I can’t see too many problems using it ( or perhaps “formerly”) when referring to the sporting records and similar.
i.e. "Caitlyn Jenner (nee Bruce Jenner) is a former olympic decathlete etc. etc.
Overall though, yes it is a dick-headed move to continue referring incorrectly to someone who makes a simple change from a “he” to a “she”. If a married woman chose to use a different married name we easily make that leap and don’t fret about it.
The 1960 Boxing Gold Medal is still in the name of Cassius Clay.
I suspect any awards the erstwhile Bradley Manning was entitled to when he served in the Army would still be cited properly in that name. Which mean any benefits, pension that Bradley Manning was entitled to, Chelsea Manning could get without anyone needing to change anything.
Although I suspect Bradley Manning probably surrendered an right when convicted.
If you want to call Manning a traitor or an asshole or a low life POS, or whatever, have at. If you disagree with what she did, then I have no problem with pointing that out, and even being rude about it.
But, by misgendering her, you are not just insulting her, you are insulting all other trans people. That’s not really fair to the others who did not perform “traitorous” acts.
Now, I am sure that orangutanes and oranges and douches are all insulted by their comparison to the president, but they don’t have any rights I care about.
Here’s a hypothetical… I’m sure people recall the common trope of a person (typically in an asylum) who believes that they are Napoleon. They sincerely believe that they are the historical French dictator. How far do you go in supporting the assertion?
I’m not drawing a direct equivalency here but it is similar in some ways. If you insist that Napoleon isn’t really Napoleon, then Napoleon is going to be hurt and offended. At the same time you won’t let him rule France just because he believes he’s supposed to. So how far do you go in respecting this person’s beliefs about their self-identity?
I Am Cait was on a while ago, so I may be misremembering, but she may have said that she felt like the athletic stuff was part of Bruce’s life and Caitlin was a new chapter, moving forward. But you also have to remember, Caitlin Jenner is (or, was at the time) very new to all of this and wasn’t (isn’t?) totally comfortable with everything yet. Even on the show she had a hard time referring to herself as female/she/Caitlin 100% of the time.
Being able to fall back to previous pronouns and names, I’d guess, is pretty common for people that are transitioning for a variety of reasons.
Agreed. I think my attempt at explanation would be that when someone calls Trump an orangey Cheeto, there’s no question that it’s hyperbole and insult. But because Chelsea was once known as Bradley, and identified to the world as male, the use of ‘he’ in the present is not clearly or unambiguously hyperbolic. A listener may well infer that the message is that the speaker rejects the notion of gender confirmation changes, and is using ‘he’ to signal that rejection.
There’s no aspect of “deserves it,” in play here, in my opinion.
You’re confusing grandiose delusions and megalomania with gender dysphoria. One isn’t necessarily a mental disorder, the other makes you unexpectedly successful in politics.
If you can avoid referring to a trans person’s gender, there’s no reason to call them by their preferred pronoun. For example, you could just say “Manning” all the time and avoid the discussion entirely. I don’t think that’s a dick move, but it might reflect poorly on yourself as people might see you as so squicked out by transgender issues that you have to use stilted language to avoid the subject entirely. But that’s far more considerate than just calling her “he” and “Bradley”.
In the case of Trump, more of the same. If you want to avoid using his name for any reason, people might find you petty or overly focused on such a trivial issue, but it’s far less of a dick move than calling him “her” or pretending Trump is a woman for the purposes of belittling him.
Furthermore, there is the “class” issue. By refusing to call Trump by his name, you are only insulting Trump. By refusing to call Chelsea Manning by her name, you are insulting all trans people, and the concept of transgender as a whole.