You’re far more forgiving and merciful than I.
I’m not a big fan of mx. I don’t really see it catching on either. I love ji (which I learned of just now). But, I see that as having even less of a chance. We won’t go on the metric system because it’s unAmerican. I don’t see a Hindi word making major inroads. But just to be prepared, is that ji as in jeep? Or is the J pronounced like in Jean Luc?
Oh no I’m not.
There’s a sort of extreme stage of battle rage where a preternatural calm descends. Think of Bruce Willis in Pulp Fiction, eyes glittering, saying ever so softly and slowly, “Go ahead and pick up the gun, Zed.”
That’s where I’m currently at in this struggle. I’ve gone through so much extreme emotional turmoil that my rage is honed to a fine edge. The curse I placed on Aspidistra is one capable of wreaking exquisite psychological pain: to fully realize the evil you’ve done and be helpless to undo it.
Jeep minus p = Ji.
English has absorbed so many foreign words already, what’s one more? Ji is an especially useful one.
I like ji, but agree it seems very unlikely to catch on. Whereas my Congress critters offer “Mx” in their drop-down menus.
So instead of people revealing their gender status they have to reveal their citizenship staus? Imagine what would conservatives think of that! 
Personally, if we’re not going to bother distinguishing gender or anything else, I’d soon just get rid of the honorific entirely. It already often seems old fashioned. For professions where they are used, you could use the title of the profession, e.g. Teacher.
I have to say I’ve not been referred to as Mr. in quite a long time, nor have I had to include it on any forms or anything.
Johanna, I’m sincerely sorry for you that you find the fact of your being born into a male body so distressing. However, no woman caused this, and no woman can ameliorate it by any amount of trying to treat gender identity as more salient than biological sex. Because it’s not.
To the extend that you have emotional distress over your body, only you can solve this - nobody else can solve this problem by perceiving or not perceiving you in a particular way.
To the extent that you may fear violence, that violence comes from men. The insistence of the trans movement that women must forgo single-sex spaces always and everywhere does nothing to solve this problem. There is no point in it, except for those whose main aim was to police and control women’s thoughts - it does nothing to curb the violence that’s caused by violent men.
Sex is more salient than gender identity. The quest to re-organise society by gender identity rather than sex is failing, and hurting people. Apparently nobody here has noticed this, but it’s true.
I will not any longer attempt to prop up this failing system by sacrificing other womens’ rights to have single-sex spaces where these are necessary for safety and dignity. I won’t sacrifice gay people, particularly gay women’s right to be same-sex attracted. And I especially won’t sacrifice the hundreds of thousands of Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria kids to the delusion that ROGD “is a made up disorder” or whatever the gender doctors are trying to sell us on this month. Because that is a flat lie.
… and this is why I don’t post as much on these boards and seldom stray outside MPISMS and GQ.
Aspidistra (whatever you think of them) neither misgendered another poster nor an off-board figure.
Aspidistra expressed a general opinion on the subject.
You in particular @Miller simply cannot be trusted to apply the board rules correctly because (rightly or wrongly) you are so invested in your views - and I’m not commenting on whether those views are right or wrong - you will twist the rules to suit.
And if - as I suspect - this rule doesn’t actually mean what it says, and is in reality interpreted to mean “you may not express any view contrary to the prevailing view on this subject” then have the guts to make that the rule. Instead of pretending that you are merely protecting individuals from insult, have the damn balls to just say out in the open that there are certain views which cannot be expressed on this board.
So, you’re saying that trans women must be shoved in with the cis men who abuse them (at a much higher rate than they abuse cis women).
As for lesbians’ right to be attracted to cis women… This is a bizarre red herring. I doubt there is anyone who finds every woman in the world attractive, no matter how you choose to define “women”. No one is forcing people to enter into relationships. At least, no one in the trans-friendly community. And why just lesbians, and not heterosexual men?
And to expand on this, the real irony here is that you have DeSantis and other fuckwits being fascists by forbidding the expression of certain views about gender and sexuality, and in this thread you have @Miller doing exactly the same thing.
But, but, Miller is right I hear you say.
What do you think DeSantis would say about the views he is trying to forbid?
The aphorism goes - “You don’t believe in free speech unless you support the right for those you don’t agree with”. A corollary that I just made up is “you aren’t anti-fascist if you twist laws to prevent the expression of views you don’t agree with”.
[Some dumbass is now going to say “but this is a private message board and doesn’t have to uphold free speech”. No shit, Sherlock. Good ideas are good ideas, whether you have to support them by law or not
And some other shithead is going to assume I agree with Aspidistra’s views. Go on, you know you want to. Some of us have principles and can apply them without having to be partisan. You, not so much].
Hate speech isn’t protected speech. Doing harm isn’t protected speech. The kind of hate speech displayed here is an integral part of the process of stochastic terrorism against trans people, who are being murdered at a higher rate as a result.
“Hate speech” means just exactly what you say it means, neither more nor less, amirite? You think that merely by labelling certain views in a certain way, you can magically bypass debate.
This is not going to end well, is it…?
As far as I could tell this began as a discussion of what’s the probpem with correctly gendering pronouns. You took it into the realm of Chromosomal Sex Trumps Everything .
Is there such an effort? And is it failing? Or is developing a better society even being given a chance rather than spiraling into unyelding pushback from multipe directions from those who feel threatened?
As far as my cisXY self can, I sort of “get” the exclusivist-feminist position in the sense of “dammit, no, WE fought for this it’s OURS”. But in many social aspects, sometimes the right and good thing to do is to embrace the “newcomer” who is “not from our own”; not to tell them “you’ll NEVER be one of us, sorry, try to deal with it, can’t do anything about it!”.
Is that what would you do? Force that the trans must be given yet a third set of “safe spaces” so that they can be separated from both cismales and cisfemales, “you are forever NOT either one of us”?
OTOH, as Prichester stated, would the claim or ask then be to have any form of misgendering or transdenialism become officially defined as per se “hate speech”, as opposed to just ignorant or rude?
As the Nazi said to the Chancellor.
To the best of my knowledge, that’s not how stochastic terrorism is typically defined. Stochastic terrorism, in the ordinary course of things, occurs when someone with a large following says (for example) “This person needs to die”, or “This organisation must be destroyed”, knowing that, if they only say so often enough, there’s a good chance one of their followers may act on it. A good example is the Ayatollah Khomeini’s fatwa against Salman Rushdie. Simply saying, as Aspidistra has, that trans women aren’t women, doesn’t rise to the level of stochastic terrorism, no matter how many people they’re speaking to, and no matter how they may react.
Because you aren’t really the Prince Valiant of Free Speech if the speech you’re defending isn’t really indefensible.
No it isn’t. It’s a lie, a deliberate blood libel (and I use the term intentionally) using narratives like this…
…in order to portray a highly marginalized and heavily victimized demographic as a sinister threat in order to justify their increased victimization. There is a widespread and well-organized pogrom in progress against the trans community right now, accusing them of preying on children and menacing women, and here you are, right in lockstep with all their lies and moral depravity.
And you have the sheer audacity to lie about discussions of gender identity “hurting people” while every narrative you promote will actually hurt trans people. They will suffer and they will hurt and they will die because of what people like you do.
And you’re fine with that. You’ve made that perfectly clear.
Yes, Aspidistra is playing a very clever game of “I’m not touching you.”
Saying that transwoman SDMB poster x is really a man is forbidden.
Saying that public celebrity transwoman x is really a man is now also forbidden.
But saying that all transwomen are really men is “a general opinion on the subject.”
All of your claims and cites have been shown to be lies, but by god, this convinced me!