Welcome to Gaia! ::

Dandrogyny
You don't like "xe", you're not asking me to call them "it", so what are you suggesting? I'm guessing you want me to use "they", and I already explained why I don't use it.

This argument got stupid and went in circles like I said it would. Have a ********' beer so you can relax your tight a*****e a bit.

Your "firm beliefs" aren't relevant. By now enough people know what the word means. You didn't even have to ask what it meant. It isn't confusing anybody. And when you tell people you use it because calling people "it" is weird, it doesn't take much more for them to get it. You don't give people's intelligence enough credit. You must also hate all slang.

The word "gravy" isn't a word ABOUT people that offends them. Since intersex people and gender-neutral people have voiced not wanting to be called "it", and a number of them also really don't like "they" and really do prefer "xe", I'm going to go with what they've been asking for. I'm pretty sure they're the authority on naming themselves and "making up" words. I'm not gonna crawl three times up their asses about it.

The "true" grammatical use of "it" is irrelevant. The word bothers people in reference to themselves, so I don't use it. This is not a difficult concept.

I don't need somebody flipping out over one word telling me to "grow up," thanks. Say whatever you want, I won't throw a fit. You've essentially already said that last sentence, you just went off on a tangent instead. I might have preferred you to keep it short and not waste so much time on nothing.


Yes, you don't use it because it's "grammatically unpleasant". Like I said, to me, it's the same as making a word up because you don't like how another sounds. I don't give a ******** what you decide to use, but I won't respect "xe" because of its poor political nature. You seem to really struggle with the notion that I can oppose your word usage without providing an alternative.

It follows that a dispute over a stupid word must be a stupid argument.

Considering my belief upon the foundations of language is that of Ludwig Wittgenstein, I'd say they're pretty relevant.

I see. As long as enough people know the meaning of doubleplusgood, it's not at all problematic!

Slang creates words for concepts that haven't yet received linguistic expression due to cultural nuance, or are simply localisms used to express the same concept that national languages also have a word for. I don't happen to see slang as in the same class as constructionist political language with an agenda.

What's their problem with "they", exactly? If "it" is an issue with its relation to objects, I can see that issue. It can be undone, but I can see it. "They", however? This is why I am convinced it is a politically expressive term more than anything else, akin to Marxists calling each other "comrade", or using blood-kin terms to address one another.

Um, no. It's not irrelevant at all. It's the foundation of the word's usage. It's how it becomes employed in our language. It is the furthest ******** thing from irrelevant, and if it was irrelevant, they wouldn't feel the need to generate a term to replace it.

"Flipping out"? Right. Asking you if you're serious and then expressing my dislike of the term is "flipping out". But no, I haven't "essentially said that last sentence". I've explained my position, which is a far cry from telling someone to "deal with it". But yes, I'll take your perspective, anyone who explains their views is "going off on a tangent".

I could have kept it far shorter if you didn't keep denying pertinent aspects of the issues.
Desideraht's avatar

Dapper Phantom

Blind Guardian the 2nd
Dandrogyny
You don't like "xe", you're not asking me to call them "it", so what are you suggesting? I'm guessing you want me to use "they", and I already explained why I don't use it.

This argument got stupid and went in circles like I said it would. Have a ********' beer so you can relax your tight a*****e a bit.

Your "firm beliefs" aren't relevant. By now enough people know what the word means. You didn't even have to ask what it meant. It isn't confusing anybody. And when you tell people you use it because calling people "it" is weird, it doesn't take much more for them to get it. You don't give people's intelligence enough credit. You must also hate all slang.

The word "gravy" isn't a word ABOUT people that offends them. Since intersex people and gender-neutral people have voiced not wanting to be called "it", and a number of them also really don't like "they" and really do prefer "xe", I'm going to go with what they've been asking for. I'm pretty sure they're the authority on naming themselves and "making up" words. I'm not gonna crawl three times up their asses about it.

The "true" grammatical use of "it" is irrelevant. The word bothers people in reference to themselves, so I don't use it. This is not a difficult concept.

I don't need somebody flipping out over one word telling me to "grow up," thanks. Say whatever you want, I won't throw a fit. You've essentially already said that last sentence, you just went off on a tangent instead. I might have preferred you to keep it short and not waste so much time on nothing.


Yes, you don't use it because it's "grammatically unpleasant". Like I said, to me, it's the same as making a word up because you don't like how another sounds. I don't give a ******** what you decide to use, but I won't respect "xe" because of its poor political nature. You seem to really struggle with the notion that I can oppose your word usage without providing an alternative.

It follows that a dispute over a stupid word must be a stupid argument.

Considering my belief upon the foundations of language is that of Ludwig Wittgenstein, I'd say they're pretty relevant.

I see. As long as enough people know the meaning of doubleplusgood, it's not at all problematic!

Slang creates words for concepts that haven't yet received linguistic expression due to cultural nuance, or are simply localisms used to express the same concept that national languages also have a word for. I don't happen to see slang as in the same class as constructionist political language with an agenda.

What's their problem with "they", exactly? If "it" is an issue with its relation to objects, I can see that issue. It can be undone, but I can see it. "They", however? This is why I am convinced it is a politically expressive term more than anything else, akin to Marxists calling each other "comrade", or using blood-kin terms to address one another.

Um, no. It's not irrelevant at all. It's the foundation of the word's usage. It's how it becomes employed in our language. It is the furthest ******** thing from irrelevant, and if it was irrelevant, they wouldn't feel the need to generate a term to replace it.

"Flipping out"? Right. Asking you if you're serious and then expressing my dislike of the term is "flipping out". But no, I haven't "essentially said that last sentence". I've explained my position, which is a far cry from telling someone to "deal with it". But yes, I'll take your perspective, anyone who explains their views is "going off on a tangent".

I could have kept it far shorter if you didn't keep denying pertinent aspects of the issues.
Except I didn't make "xe" up.

It's a stupid argument because you can't let it go even though you're just going in circles now and my position isn't going to change any time soon.

Appeal to authority logical fallacy? The beliefs obviously don't apply since people are using the world without much difficulty.

It's not a "doublespeak" word. It's the HUMAN version of "it".

That's not true. Almost all slang is for concepts that already have words. Do you know how many applications "********" has? Hundreds. And "s**t" means a lot of things, too.

You assume that that "xe" has a "political" agenda but when I use it I only use it because it is what persons who actually ARE gender-neutral/intersexed have asked. I don't really care what some cisgender guy wants me to say. You don't make the rules for them or for me either. They're the ones being pronoun'd.

I've heard them (plural) say that "they" is an issue because they (plural) don't like to sound any different than members of the binary, who get a singular pronoun, and they (plural) don't want to be addressed as a plural as though they (plural) are a group individually.

As much as you swear "it" can be undone (despite having been used as a way to INSULT trans/intersexed people for as long as they've been around), xe can also be accepted into the vocabulary. "Reclaiming" a word is no better, really. And as stated before, that is up to THEM to reclaim, not me. I'll use "it" as soon as the word is reclaimed. Until then, you can just get over me using "xe". I will continue to use it no matter how "******** stupid" you thinkit is.

The "true" grammatical use of "it" IS irrelevant BECAUSE they find it offensive. Go ahead and try to "educate" them, they will just think you're trying to find an excuse to undermine its effect on their identity and dismiss people dehumanizing them.

Considering how long your posts are getting, yeah, I'd consider this "flipping out".

I'm not "denying" anything. I'm disagreeing with your misinformation and stringent, elitist rules. You speak from binary, cisgender privilege. And you don't give a ******** how people feel about their pronouns. Well I do.
Heir of Love's avatar

Wealthy Prophet

2,450 Points
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
  • Wall Street 200
  • Junior Trader 100
Whether or not it's smart, it's their decision I suppose.

But when I have kids, I'm not going to put myself in a position to explain that there are boys and girls. I think they should grow up knowing the difference, and knowing who they are.
marshmallowcreampie's avatar

Sparkly Pirate

16,950 Points
  • Megathread 100
  • Conventioneer 300
  • Citizen 200
Wyffa
marshmallowcreampie
I think it's unnecessary. Society as a whole has a problem, but hiding your child's gender won't really help anything. Parents should teach their kids that whether they are a boy or a girl, they don't have to restrict themselves to wearing a certain color or playing with certain toys or games.

On a side note... How will they stop the child from telling other kids what gender they are? Also, which bathrooms will the kid use?


Unisex, I suppose.


Most places don't have unisex bathrooms, at least, not in the US.
Haha Coffee's avatar

Conservative Dabbler

8,900 Points
  • Forum Dabbler 200
  • Popular Thread 100
  • Citizen 200
Blind Guardian the 2nd
Haha Coffee
What an absolutely...*breathe..calm*

Those parents, are not very intelligent in my eyes.


Less intelligent than those who force lifestyles and beliefs into their children?

[/quote

Yes
Omorose Panya's avatar

Wheezing Prophet

7,350 Points
  • Conversationalist 100
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
  • Forum Sophomore 300
VoidCrow
I agree with you one the whole thing of hiding the gender, or just not bringing it up. Gender is purely what is between your legs, and shouldn't dictate who people need to be, or who people already are.

And also, "boys create" is incorrect because most children's commercials with art stuff is aimed at girls. It should be Boys build and fight, and girls do hair and take care of babies. Though that could be thought of as the companies just being good at aiming for the target market. It would be a good debate in itself, honestly.
marshmallowcreampie
But the stuff aimed at girls is for decorating and accessorizing, not building or constructing.
In support of Marshmallow's point:





Blind Guardian the 2nd
Lokshen
Why are we to assume humans are blank slates? After 3.8 billion years of evolution, why is our species without any instincts, even though our ancestors and closely related species all display habit and instinct, why homo sapiens? Why would you conclude we are "blank slates."


It is not that we are without instincts. It is that our instincts are unclear, and we know that many of them can be overridden.


Do we know this or do we just want this to be true really REALLY badly?
Omorose Panya's avatar

Wheezing Prophet

7,350 Points
  • Conversationalist 100
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
  • Forum Sophomore 300
Lokshen
Blind Guardian the 2nd
Lokshen
Why are we to assume humans are blank slates? After 3.8 billion years of evolution, why is our species without any instincts, even though our ancestors and closely related species all display habit and instinct, why homo sapiens? Why would you conclude we are "blank slates."


It is not that we are without instincts. It is that our instincts are unclear, and we know that many of them can be overridden.


Do we know this or do we just want this to be true really REALLY badly?
Provide sources that identify our instincts, as well as make compelling cases that they are clear and that they absolutely cannot be overridden. Until someone can, then, yes, we can state that the nature of our instincts and the degree to which they control us is unclear.
Omorose Panya
Lokshen
Blind Guardian the 2nd
Lokshen
Why are we to assume humans are blank slates? After 3.8 billion years of evolution, why is our species without any instincts, even though our ancestors and closely related species all display habit and instinct, why homo sapiens? Why would you conclude we are "blank slates."


It is not that we are without instincts. It is that our instincts are unclear, and we know that many of them can be overridden.


Do we know this or do we just want this to be true really REALLY badly?
Provide sources that identify our instincts, as well as make compelling cases that they are clear and that they absolutely cannot be overridden. Until someone can, then, yes, we can state that the nature of our instincts and the degree to which they control us is unclear.


Perhaps you should be the one to prove that they are unclear and subject to being overridden as it is BLIND who first asserted the claim. I merely questioned his claim.

As per a court of law, doesn't the burden of proof fall on the one making a claim?

My evidence is simple, every other animal species possess instincts, even the highly intelligent animals such as chimps, apes, ravens, dolphins, whales, bears, tigers ect.... why would humans be so easily manipulated to be anything?
Lokshen
Blind Guardian the 2nd
Lokshen
Why are we to assume humans are blank slates? After 3.8 billion years of evolution, why is our species without any instincts, even though our ancestors and closely related species all display habit and instinct, why homo sapiens? Why would you conclude we are "blank slates."


It is not that we are without instincts. It is that our instincts are unclear, and we know that many of them can be overridden.


Do we know this or do we just want this to be true really REALLY badly?


Humans commit suicide. Regularly. It is the biggest killer of men aged 18-24 in Britain. It is a direct statement against our instinctual drive to survive and pass on our genes.
Blind Guardian the 2nd
Lokshen
Blind Guardian the 2nd
Lokshen
Why are we to assume humans are blank slates? After 3.8 billion years of evolution, why is our species without any instincts, even though our ancestors and closely related species all display habit and instinct, why homo sapiens? Why would you conclude we are "blank slates."


It is not that we are without instincts. It is that our instincts are unclear, and we know that many of them can be overridden.


Do we know this or do we just want this to be true really REALLY badly?


Humans commit suicide. Regularly. It is the biggest killer of men aged 18-24 in Britain. It is a direct statement against our instinctual drive to survive and pass on our genes.


One could also argue that their defective instincts removes them from the gene-pool, Not all organisms will possess universal traits and the same degree of adaptive traits. Some might even be inclined to kill themselves or have poor mental health (As mental health has been shown to be genetic.)

But as per gender, how are we to guess that gender is purely a construct when I can biologically at least assert that there are 2 of them via chromosomal differences.

Granted some fall outside this common distribution, however we refer to those with say X- chromosomes as defective or as a birth defect.
Lokshen
One could also argue that their defective instincts removes them from the gene-pool, Not all organisms will possess universal traits and the same degree of adaptive traits. Some might even be inclined to kill themselves or have poor mental health (As mental health has been shown to be genetic.)

But as per gender, how are we to guess that gender is purely a construct when I can biologically at least assert that there are 2 of them via chromosomal differences.

Granted some fall outside this common distribution, however we refer to those with say X- chromosomes as defective or as a birth defect.


Mental health has only shown to be partially genetic, and in very limited cases. As I showed you elsewhere, neuroplasticity means that human brains can respond to stimuli by altering their chemistry and structure which may result in mental illness; especially if the event is a traumatic one. Not to mention one cannot say that suicide is a response to "defective genes".

I'm sure someone else has explained this to you, but sex = verified biological difference, and gender = the social performance of perceived sex categories. Gender may not be purely a construct, but very many facets of it are, as evidenced by the difference in performances recorded across cultures that have no biological precedent.
Haha Coffee
Less intelligent than those who force lifestyles and beliefs into their children?


Yes

Different sides of the same coin mate.
Omorose Panya's avatar

Wheezing Prophet

7,350 Points
  • Conversationalist 100
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
  • Forum Sophomore 300
Lokshen
Perhaps you should be the one to prove that they are unclear and subject to being overridden as it is BLIND who first asserted the claim. I merely questioned his claim.

As per a court of law, doesn't the burden of proof fall on the one making a claim?

My evidence is simple, every other animal species possess instincts, even the highly intelligent animals such as chimps, apes, ravens, dolphins, whales, bears, tigers ect.... why would humans be so easily manipulated to be anything?
In a practical sense, it really depends upon the context. Do you really think it helps you out for him to provide sources that it is unclear? It makes a lot more sense for you to provide sources that it is clear, though, sure, he could provide sources that it is not.

The flaw in your reasoning is that humans are different from every other species, even those that are closest to us. Humans have the largest brains, and they would not have been able to pass human female's cervixes pelvises had they developed fully before birth. The evolutionary trade-off is that humans are born with bains that are significantly underdeveloped---much moreso than any other species---and thus are more susceptible to the "nuture" end of the spectrum. It takes something like 25 years for a human brain to fully develop (more than a quarter of the full lifespan for westerns, and about as and even more than half for others, especially when going back in time), and our incredible neuroplasticity makes determining instincts quite difficult.

The issue? We can never remove ourselves from environments to study what any kind of "default" is, so how can we determine what it is? This reminds me of arguments about feral children, but how can we label that behavior as some kind of default when it is just anothr type of environment? The best we can do is look for universal patterns, of which there are not many.
Blind Guardian the 2nd
Lokshen
One could also argue that their defective instincts removes them from the gene-pool, Not all organisms will possess universal traits and the same degree of adaptive traits. Some might even be inclined to kill themselves or have poor mental health (As mental health has been shown to be genetic.)

But as per gender, how are we to guess that gender is purely a construct when I can biologically at least assert that there are 2 of them via chromosomal differences.

Granted some fall outside this common distribution, however we refer to those with say X- chromosomes as defective or as a birth defect.


Mental health has only shown to be partially genetic, and in very limited cases. As I showed you elsewhere, neuroplasticity means that human brains can respond to stimuli by altering their chemistry and structure which may result in mental illness; especially if the event is a traumatic one. Not to mention one cannot say that suicide is a response to "defective genes".

I'm sure someone else has explained this to you, but sex = verified biological difference, and gender = the social performance of perceived sex categories. Gender may not be purely a construct, but very many facets of it are, as evidenced by the difference in performances recorded across cultures that have no biological precedent.


One could argue it partially is, the successful organism would see no cause for hopelessness.

However, gender and sex are linked. The female is ascribed specific traits, the male specific traits. The argument I am making is that sex differences will become gender differences because of differing sexual interests and strategies, different levels of fertility, and different levels in supply of gametes. On an instinctive level, human women are somewhat aware of limited fertility. That the ovarian cycle does not last the entirety of ones lifespan. Why would this limitation not manifest in behavioral differences? For example the desire to not waste said eggs on inferior sperm, but instead to seek the best genetics for said limited supply of eggs?

Perhaps your looking at performances on too superficial a level? Maybe the fact that the performances exist is a sign that they will always manifest in some way due to the simple facts of our biology.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games