Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Rolan7]

Well Sam, (you sound like a Sam, so I'm going to call you that from now on.  That's probably fine because it just reflects my perception of you) it's a matter of respect to call people by their chosen name.  Forcing nicknames on people is a classic example of teasing or hazing.  Not all nicknames, but unwanted ones.  That's why I'm not actually going to call you Sam outside of that disrespectful joke.

Furthermore, just because you perceive someone a certain way doesn't mean you should express that to them.  If you think someone is pretty then you might refer to them as "babe".  But that's often inappropriate, right?  What if they're trying to express themselves as a professional at the time?  So you would use a more professional term out of respect.  Otherwise you're working your perception of their appearance into unrelated conversation.

Most people are fine with their gender being worked into conversation, it's certainly common practice.  Very, very few people want their sex worked into conversations outside specific circumstances.  It's very personal.  And being perceived as the wrong gender can be very disappointing for people, even when no offense is meant.  It's like if you worked out for several months to build body mass, but people kept complimenting you for being slim.  They're not being mean on purpose, but it'd still suck.

[Vector]

Can someone explain to me what's the big deal with pronouns and/or gendered words?

OK, my opinion.

A person who transitions socially (= asks for different gendered words, at a minimum) is trying to decouple their social role from the one handed to them by the way our culture processes biology. Often, the social transition is accompanied by other modifications, such as in: body language, clothing, friend groups, hormonal makeup, surgical intervention, etc.

My first point is that on the part of the transitioner, this all represents a lot of effort.

Now, why is it so difficult to be trans? You can look up the statistics on Wikipedia, but what we know is: trans people who are affirmed in their social transition tend to be as healthy as anyone else; trans people who are not so affirmed experience a lot of negative consequences (the 40% suicide attempt rate is one key statistic).

OK, let's try again: how is it that people push back against attempted social transition?

One way is to punish trans people, often brutally, for gender non-conforming behavior, by which I'm generally referring to street violence, rape, bullying, other forms of direct violent attack. I'm going to call this "second-person violence," meaning that "I" am attacking "you."

The thing is that if it were just random violence, we probably wouldn't have too much of a problem. You kill a man, you are a murderer, you go to jail (ya know, in theory). So how do we justify this direct form of violence socially?

Another way to push back against trans people is to claim that transition is impossible and deliberately deny the trans person's chosen identity. This is "third-person violence," so that "I" am attacking "them." More overt forms of attack along these lines include taking policies that deliberately exclude trans people from social spaces, for example, denying trans women access to bathrooms because "they are actually men."

At the most basic level, the biological fundamentalism tactic involves repeatedly denying an individual's gender in public. It becomes apparent due to the inconsistent social narrative surrounding the person -- for example, we know that Caitlyn Jenner is often called both "she" and "he," but this is not the case for, say, Mike Pence -- that that person is trans or perceived to be a trans ally. For the latter point, I'm thinking about the period when people asserted that Lady Gaga was a trans woman.


The reason why we consider violence against trans people to be structural is that our culture is set up so that people can participate in things like this misgendering by accident. It is the norm.

Repeatedly calling someone of Anglo-Saxon descent by an incorrect name reflects badly on the speaker, who is clearly bullying the other person. But repeatedly calling a trans person by an incorrect name is considered to be an honest mistake "that anyone could make."

Through this process, trans people become hypervisible. Our social identities are denied, hence our ability to participate normally in the community, and we become clear targets for those who prefer direct forms of violence.

This social denial has a cascading effect as our identities are constructed as illegitimate, therefore resulting in: 1. denial of ordinary forms of protection in the face of violence; 2. creation of "reasonable" social policy to continue marginalizing trans people. These are the conditions which are required to make first-person violence 1. "random" 2. "reasonable" 3. "legitimate."


The reason why you are being asked not to assume the gender of strangers, therefore, and to use a person's chosen pronouns, is because even if you personally don't wish to participate in the violence against trans people, those who do want to indulge in this cultural ritual need you to signal your willingness to look the other way.

[Ulfarr]

@Rolan, to use one's prefered pronouns you'll have to know them in the first place. In the case of complete strangers, knowing their pronouns before hand is practicaly imposible so I'd argue that any assumption is largely irrelevant / insignificant at the time and there isn't a reason for someone to take offence. I get your point about when one continues to misgender the other afterwards though.

Is "Sam" supposed to be offenisive? Because it seems more like a variation of the "hey buddy" when used to incite an angry response from someone.


@Vector, thanks for the analysis. While the concept of marginalizing people (any people not just trans) isn't news to me, the whole "marginalization through misgendering" will require some effort on my part to fully understand. My native language is full of words that have gender specific forms, so I guess I'm somewhat desensitized to their usage.

To give an example we don't have a gender neutral equivalent for the word "anyone". Ours has to be used in one of its specific forms that refers to either a male or a female. It does have a "neutral" form but that would only be used when refering to an item or an animal. It also doesn't have a plural form, which leads to the problem of how one would refere to multiple "anyones". In that case, people would usually choose whichever form they are most used to in their everyday speech or the one that they think would represent the majority of their audience.

[Vector]

@Vector, thanks for the analysis. While the concept of marginalizing people (any people not just trans) isn't news to me, the whole "marginalization through misgendering" will require some effort on my part to fully understand. My native language is full of words that have gender specific forms, so I guess I'm somewhat desensitized to their usage.

To give an example we don't have a gender neutral equivalent for the word "anyone". Ours has to be used in one of its specific forms that refers to either a male or a female. It does have a "neutral" form but that would only be used when refering to an item or an animal. It also doesn't have a plural form, which leads to the problem of how one would refere to multiple "anyones". In that case, people would usually choose whichever form they are most used to in their everyday speech or the one that they think would represent the majority of their audience.

Ah, I understand a little better.

To be very clear, I am mostly posting with regards for how transphobia works in the United States and in England (I guess sort of in the English-speaking context in general). I am curious to see how this plays out in other countries, with, as you mentioned, heavily gendered languages.

[MonkeyHead]

Hmm. I am curious. Is there some kind of sociological or anthropological relationship (causative or correlation) between gender identities in a society, and the nature of said societies language when it comes to gendered terms?

[Naturegirl1999]

Why not fill a “disposable” plastic water bottle with tap water and continue using it?

[Egan_BW]

No reason you can't do that, really. Though you may as well buy a better water bottle, those ones are damn flimsy.

People might buy bottled water if they don't have access to a tap, or if the tap water is contaminated, but for the most part it's a scam.

[methylatedspirit]

I'll (mis-)quote Technology Connections in his video about automatic record changers here: "People will happily sacrifice quality for convenience if given the chance." Bottled water's not necessarily optimal from an environmental nor a financial standpoint, but the fact that it appeals to the principle of least effort means that people will choose that over buying their own water bottle and filling it up.

I like thinking of it in terms of "solutions of least effort"; people naturally gravitate towards some trough in the "terrain" of effort over time. I happen to own a nice water bottle, and I only really use it in my dorm, since the water cooler is, like, right there, so that's the solution of least effort. Outside, it turns out that buying bottled water is the solution of least effort. I love seeking out solutions of least effort; that's sort of my thing.

[Naturegirl1999]

I had a reusable one, but I think I lost it, unless I thought the one there is was someone else’s and it turns out to be mine, it’s been sitting empty for a while

[KittyTac]

Tap water is clean where I live so I just drink straight from the tap and fill 1,5L bottles from it.

[Ulfarr]

There are a couple of concerns with disposable bottles.

The long term one,is that plastics degrade over time and potentialy the plastic could "leak" into the water. This gets worse when the bottles are stored in adverse conditions like direct sunlight.

The short term (and most important one imo) is that if you drink directly from the bottle then you are basically contaminating the water with whatever exists in your mouth. If you then factor that said water is a pretty safe enviroment for microorganisms to grow , the water quality will rapidly drop. This is easily observed by drinking directly from the bottle and then leaving it for a couple of days undisturbed. The water will begin to smell badly at some point.

edit: In addition to whatever other effect they might directly have (ie increased acidity), any metabolic byproduct that accumulates in the water could further increase the degradation rate of the plastic walls.

Now you could always, just swap the water and  rinse the bottle every few days and you would minimise both effects but the degradations will accumulate over time. This effectively means that you won't have any problems if you reuse said plastic bottles a few times but you should discard them after a while.

[delphonso]

@Rolan, to use one's prefered pronouns you'll have to know them in the first place. In the case of complete strangers, knowing their pronouns before hand is practicaly imposible so I'd argue that any assumption is largely irrelevant / insignificant at the time and there isn't a reason for someone to take offence. I get your point about when one continues to misgender the other afterwards though.

Is "Sam" supposed to be offenisive? Because it seems more like a variation of the "hey buddy" when used to incite an angry response from someone.


@Vector, thanks for the analysis. While the concept of marginalizing people (any people not just trans) isn't news to me, the whole "marginalization through misgendering" will require some effort on my part to fully understand. My native language is full of words that have gender specific forms, so I guess I'm somewhat desensitized to their usage.

To give an example we don't have a gender neutral equivalent for the word "anyone". Ours has to be used in one of its specific forms that refers to either a male or a female. It does have a "neutral" form but that would only be used when refering to an item or an animal. It also doesn't have a plural form, which leads to the problem of how one would refere to multiple "anyones". In that case, people would usually choose whichever form they are most used to in their everyday speech or the one that they think would represent the majority of their audience.

In the first situation, I doubt many trans people would be upset, but you, as an ally, can take steps to avoid that situation entirely. In English, the 3rd person plural "they" can be used when gender is irrelevant or unknown. You can also just use peoples names.

Why not fill a “disposable” plastic water bottle with tap water and continue using it?

This is what everyone should do. Nalgene bottles and the like are a scam to make you feel like you're helping the environment while you don't at all.

[Uthimienure]

Why use plastic at all?  Plastic leeches into your water, which is not healthy. Plastic pollutes.

Use a couple of glass bottles (I saved Snapple bottles while they were still made of glass) and wash them in the dishwasher or by filling with very hot water & a drop of dishwashing liquid and shaking vigorously & washing the spout and lid with a soapy dishcloth. Voila, use them for many years, save the environment and your health at the same time.

[TD1]

Yuck. I hate the word 'ally' in this context.

I'm not even sure why, it just feels wrong.

Same with BLM and Trump Insurgents.

I guess it implies that the 'ally' MUST lend aid? An attempt to tie them down, I guess.

[Loud Whispers]

Use the word 'varangian guard' instead in the context of 'preserving the life of the basileus'