quote:

---

Race has nothing to do with sex. If I had a transgendered sister, my sentence would create confusion. The person would think "two biological female siblings" when in fact that is false.

---

So what? Why do people need to know your sisters' life stories? Someone can say "I have 5 siblings" if some of those are half siblings and some are step siblings. If someone assumes that all six people involve din the sentence have the same two parents, who cares?

quote:

---

You say he's now a woman. When did he become one?

---

"His" call. As one human being to another, if they are telling me they want to be called "she"...why would I not?

quote:

---

This got overlooked on p5, but I'll restate it here to cover Astro's query.

Suppose your best friend graduated from tu, but has since burned all of their tu gear, wears maroon, tacky overalls, says howdy to everyone, is a BMA that paid for 50% of the new Kyle Field costs, and has a Reveille tattoo. In this conversation you'd be the guy saying, "nope, you're not an Aggie. You're a Longhorn. The only fact that matters is where you went to school."

The only obvious difference between this and the trans issue is that your friend theoretically has a choice. Ag_of_08, in all likelihood, does not. And even if she did, why be that guy?

---

Is this person mfbarnes?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Race has nothing to do with sex. If I had a transgendered sister, my sentence would create confusion. The person would think "two biological female siblings" when in fact that is false.

---

So what? Why do people need to know your sisters' life stories? Someone can say "I have 5 siblings" if some of those are half siblings and some are step siblings. If someone assumes that all six people involve din the sentence have the same two parents, who cares?

---

Currently "siblings" includes step and half siblings. "sister" does not include men. Saying you have two sisters without qualification deceives the listener.

I have sued HBO over the misleading title "Band of Brothers." What a bunch of BS. Those guys weren't even from the same parts of the country, let alone same parents.

quote:

---

Second, we should say that in this case the definition of an aggie is that you went to school at a&m. In that scenario, which I think is much closer to reality, I would have no problem telling someone they were not an aggie, since they didn't fit the definition.

---

So you're one of those people. Well, at least your consistent.

quote:

---

I have sued HBO over the misleading title "Band of Brothers." What a bunch of BS. Those guys weren't even from the same parts of the country, let alone same parents.

---

cambridge:
a man who is a member of the same group as you or who shares an interest with you or has a similar way of thinking to you.

You will lose.

quote:

---

This shouldn't be important. It shouldn't be important to a segment of the population that the rest of society pretend they are something they are technically not. They should get thicker skin, because all people are doing when they use the original pronouns is valuing what they think is the truth over the other persons feelings.

---

Why do you think diddly parts are more important than how a person's brain is wired and how they present?

Is what is in a person's pants more informative for how you interact with a person than how they present? If you apply for a job and meet Vanessa the hiring manager who presents as a woman are you going to ask to look down her pants to make sure you should or shouldn't treat her like a man? When somebody refers to him or her are you imagining them having a hoo hoo or wing ding or are you imagining the cultural construct of masculine or feminine? If I say I'm hanging out with a guy friend are you more or less accurately informed by that information when you come meet us and find a person that you would assume is female if you saw them on the street?

quote:

---

who presents as a woman

---

There's that word again. A cashier takes a dollar bill. Later they found out it was fake. Still a dollar bill?

quote:

---

quote:

---

If you were a lexiconist for Cambridge, what would the next dictionary entry read?

---

I don't know. what would be inclusive of that community? I am not transgender...so i leave it to them to suggest something.

---

laugh/cry

quote:

---

quote:

---

It's irrational because it doesn't meet your arbitrary criteria of what causes harm? By that standard body dysmorphic disorder should be supported with drinks at a bar and high fives too, assuming they haven't cut off their hands. Who cares as long as no one gets hurt? It's not like we live in a community right? My life is lived out completely in a vacuum! (Surely I wasn't the only one reading the salon.com pedophile article that never would have been printed years ago. Amazing how attitudes change when feelings and things outside our control are emphasized as a measure of right and wrong. Clearly that guy is super healthy as long as he doesn't act on it.)

---

No, its irrational because it's not based on anything...rational. Your logical leaps are quite something. I would not say body dysmorphic disorder is "accepted" because anyone would understand that having a obessions about a flaw is not healthy for you. Thus, my criteria.

quote:

---

What were you saying earlier about truth being independent of what you think? Does that no longer apply when we talk about transgender people? Is truth not a rational enough reason for you to reconsider?

---

Of course there is absolute truth. But our words are merely language. I don't see the need to "protect" the word female against transgenders because someone wants to say that all men were born men with *****es. We've evolved past that, imo.

quote:

---

*As a side note, common sense as you perceive it doesn't really exist. It's what you grew up with and are accustomed too but it varies widely in society. Thus your appeals to it are foolhardy and misguided. I appreciate you appealing to it though, because it must be impossible to see anything else with that huge plank in your eye.

---

I guess if you see no issue in hurting people to defend a word that doesnt affect you, i guess we are stuck there.

---

Being born with a ***** or vagina when you think you shouldn't have one sounds like an obsession with a flaw, especially if you're willing to undergo hormone treatment and far more to get rid of it. Thus your criteria is not rational by your own definition.

Words without meaning are useless and reduces language to mindless sounds that no one can actually understand or interpret. We have created specificity in language because diversity has necessitated it (such as blind vs. legally blind from earlier). To broaden categories of words is the opposite of evolution because they lose their expressiveness and reason for being. The idea that language evolves by devolving is contradictory.

If you think I'm trying to hurt people over a vocabulary word you have no business calling anyone else obtuse.

quote:

---

Currently "siblings" includes step and half siblings. "sister" does not include men. Saying you have two sisters without qualification deceives the listener.

---

I'm still not following the real issue here. If someone assumed you had a biological sister, and it turns out you did not...they would just "oh" and move on. Or are you advocating that no one call anyone but a biological sister their sister?

And then, why are you being so overly rigid with language in this case?

quote:

---

I'm not one of those people, I think if you like a&m you're an aggie, because that's the way we use the word. I was altering the situation to better reflect the one you're comparing it to.

---

Here's the rub. You are making the definition of an Aggie immutable to one condition: where you went to school. Much like you are making your pronouns immutable to one condition: the parts between your legs. I've decided that the definitions of male and female can be broadened to include gender, whether chosen due to being weird, brain condition where grey matter behaves abnormally like the other gender in certain regions, or just how you were born.

touche.

quote:

---

Words without meaning are useless and reduces language to mindless sounds that no one can actually understand or interpret. We have created specificity in language because diversity has necessitated it (such as blind vs. legally blind from earlier). To broaden categories of words is the opposite of evolution because they lose their expressiveness and reason for being. The idea that language evolves by devolving is contradictory.

If you think I'm trying to hurt people over a vocabulary word you have no business calling anyone else obtuse.

---

Yes, if you are equating adjusting language as society adjusts...which happens all the time...with the devolving of language into gutteral sounds then yes...you are being obtuse.

Stop acting like meanings of words haven't changed over time as societies have changed. Stop acting like the english language is the exact way its been since inception.

It sucks that transgender people can't be called women because someones afraid were going to be cavemen because of it.

quote:

---

cambridge:
a man who is a member of the same group as you or who shares an interest with you or has a similar way of thinking to you.

You will lose.

---

An example of the evolution of a word over time. Why are transgendered denied the same treatment?

Even looking at sister: Dictionaries recognize that a sister is "female friend that may be regarded as a sister". So, this "confusion" you're so afraid of already exists.

quote:

---

quote:

---

who presents as a woman

---

There's that word again. A cashier takes a dollar bill. Later they found out it was fake. Still a dollar bill?

---

There is harm done if I give you fake currency. What harm is done if I introduce a mtf as her? Very few situations could cause harm. How often do you look down the pants of acquaintances? You've probably come across a few trans none the wiser and with no harm.

Frankly how people act and present is far more consequential to our day to day interactions than our diddly parts. This is the criteria we use to gauge our interaction with others every day. If we want trans people to wear a scarlet letter I hope you're willing to drop your pants with everybody you meet to prove the pronouns referencing you are accurate as far as our binary language is considered.

I walk down the street everyday and I decide if people are him or her without ever sniffing their crotch just like every other normal person.

quote:

---

Many people have not, and I personally don't see a reason to.

A bunch of people wanting me to isn't a reason, I want to know why they want me to. I want to know why this behavior is different from them asking me to just play along with a lie.

All I need to see is an acceptable alternate definition and a reason it's better and I'd support it. I've just never heard one

---

Come on man, there's plenty there. You just want to remove the human element of it and look at it in a sterile vacuum. Or maybe you just want to argue on the internet.

You can just add a definition that's "a transgender person who identifies with female". Maybe theres a better one out there. I'm sure a trans person would know.

Language isn't shattered. Life will go on.

quote:

---

Give "woman" a second definition then! I'm not against the changing of the word, I'm against destroying it by taking away it's exclusivity.

---

Clarify this, please. My interpretation is that giving a 'second definition' is taking away it's exclusivity.

quote:

---

If I though "diddly parts" we're what determined it then I'd think surgery could change it, wouldn't I? I don't think that though, I think it's genetics. That's how we as a society currently define the word, and I think it's a good definition.

---

Yet the reality is that you don't know the genetic makeup of anybody you interact with and use gender pronouns based on your limited information which is often how one presents. You aren't swabbing everybody for dna. It's not how we functionally use these terms. We use them based on our gender constructs and how they present. You can cry in your dictionary but when big titty Jenny shows up in a short skirt you call that person her even if she was tommy growing up.

You may also consider that genetic male or female as a practical matter isn't accurately matching our construct of man and woman. Perhaps the definition you hold to isn't as helpful as you'd want it to be. Vanessa may have a dick but when you meet Vanessa with a dick and biologically male dna Vanessa doesn't fit in your box. Your binary construct isn't properly informing us about Vanessa so maybe you should reevaluate the construct.

quote:

---

Stop misquoting me. It's very difficult to have a conversation when you keep misrepresenting what I'm saying. For the final time, it is not dependent on physical genitalia.

---

You've dug in several times on this thread that you don't think a trans person born a man can really be female, and vice versa, while ceding you'd be polite and use a "she" pronoun IRL. This thread is 10 pages now, and frankly I'm relying on memory rather than rereading 10 pages to find your direct quote so that I don't misinterpret you. (Feature request: Click on a user's name to see the their most recent posts).

If you don't mind, so I don't misrepresent you, either correct my impression of your argument, or correct why genitalia as a proxy for sex at birth (your criteria) is not accurate, or a mischaracterization.

quote:

---

For the final time, it is not dependent on physical genitalia.

---

Found your original quote:

quote:

---

I think that chromosomes and the sex you are born with are what you are, and (unlike him) I think it's fine to act like whatever you want so long as it's clear that technically you are not that.

---

The parts between your legs, hoo haa, diddly parts, and other euphemisms we've used on this thread for genitalia were simply proxy's for your "chromosomes and sex you were born with." I don't think it's unfair to treat "physical genitalia" and "chromosomes and sex you were born with" as synonymous.

quote:

---

I walk down the street everyday and I decide if people are him or her without ever sniffing their crotch just like every other normal person.

---

Is it your decision whether they are a him or her that makes them a him or her? Remember, you might be deceived. So what is?

quote:

---

The parts between your legs, hoo haa, diddly parts, and other euphemisms we've used on this thread for genitalia were simply proxy's for your "chromosomes and sex you were born with." I don't think it's unfair to treat "physical genitalia" and "chromosomes and sex you were born with" as synonymous.

---

Except I provided examples where the opposite is true.

We're into 10 pages now. I may have overlooked these examples, but this thread is too long now for me to go on another adventure to find them, and I do not possess perfect recall of every argument made by every poster. If you don't mind being brief, what are these examples.