Gender confusion

[temporal1]

By contrast, I rather enjoy the "francization" of our language.
It has helped me immensely in the learning of French.
I think too the norsification of English did away with a lot of pesky conjugations and declensions that make something like the learning of German or Dutch seem insurmountable.

What's interesting is that your take on the francization of English; that is was top-down, imposed, by the elites, on an unwilling populace - and thus ruinous to the organic English that had heretofore reigned, is essentially the argument that we of the conservative bent are making. These terms: pregnant person, birthing person, caretakers, friends (as opposed to boys and girls), Latinx, etc. seem artificial, imposed and in-service to an ideology that we see as destructive to the the human person and real human relationships.

I don't begrudge your impulse to inclusivity - I think the impulse, in someone like you SZD, comes from a compassionate place as you've shown yourself to be a deeply kind and compassionate person over the years that I've known you here.

My conservative caution is that 'inclusivity' and compassion cannot be THE values that guide our actions and words - they must always be in-service to Truth. A balancing act is required, though how heavy the scales ought to fall in either direction is certainly a matter of debate.

agreed. well said.

interesting to refer to the Battle of Hastings - an important military battle - i think a good analogy for what has been happening with contemporary language. not a natural changing/morphing with use+time, but a full-on formalized battle to dominate+prevail via language.

battling with legal language force of the sword is a battle without (much) physical violence or bloodshed.
battles of wills. battles of spirits. battles of evil versus good.

worsened by well-meaning deniers and enablers.

[temporal1]

Back to the topic of the language used for gender, I don't always understand the rejection of the term "trans" or "transgender". It seems quite accurate regardless of one's ethics. A trans woman or a transgender woman is a person who was not born woman but wishes to move into the identity, hence the prefix "trans". Regardless of how you might feel about the situation, this is an accurate use of language.

I think that's a legitimate question and I honestly don't know the answer to that.

You’ve found a good place to learn:

I understand your point but I would suggest then that dictionaries add the word transwoman rather than changing the definition of woman to include someone who identifies as a woman.

[Bootstrap]

Back to the topic of the language used for gender, I don't always understand the rejection of the term "trans" or "transgender". It seems quite accurate regardless of one's ethics. A trans woman or a transgender woman is a person who was not born woman but wishes to move into the identity, hence the prefix "trans". Regardless of how you might feel about the situation, this is an accurate use of language.

I think that's a legitimate question and I honestly don't know the answer to that.

You’ve found a good place to learn:

I understand your point but I would suggest then that dictionaries add the word transwoman rather than changing the definition of woman to include someone who identifies as a woman.

I agree with Gary here. Redefining terms like "man" and "woman" can only lead to confusion. The trans people I have met don't really become just a man or just a woman of the opposite sex than they started with. And the world must be an incredibly confusing place for teenagers who are told they should figure out what their sexual identity and gender are. What's a teenager supposed to do with that?

But it's pretty clear that neither Gary nor I are producing these dictionaries and that these terms are being used in society around us.

[temporal1]

Rome had Caligula.
i’m not sure ordinary citizens voted for him and all his indulgences.
voting for it would infer added complicity. no?

.. as an aside, i appreciated how DJT did not see the need to recognize Pride in a dedicated month.
he didn’t ban it. it didn’t go away. he saw no need to institutionalize it.

other than for purposes of bullying, what’s the point?

[nett]

I think that's a legitimate question and I honestly don't know the answer to that.

You’ve found a good place to learn:

I understand your point but I would suggest then that dictionaries add the word transwoman rather than changing the definition of woman to include someone who identifies as a woman.

I agree with Gary here. Redefining terms like "man" and "woman" can only lead to confusion. The trans people I have met don't really become just a man or just a woman of the opposite sex than they started with. And the world must be an incredibly confusing place for teenagers who are told they should figure out what their sexual identity and gender are. What's a teenager supposed to do with that?

But it's pretty clear that neither Gary nor I are producing these dictionaries and that these terms are being used in society around us.

What does your last sentence mean? The overwhelming majority of people use the words man and woman to mean their objective definition. It’s hard for even the most integrated, committed culture conformists to use the “correct” pronouns many times.

Case in point, The NYP wrote an article about Sam Brinton, the kleptomaniac former nuclear waste secretary who was fired for stealing luggage. They used Sam’s preferED pronouns (they/them) in all but one sentence in the article, and the Reddit r/politics brigade had a total meltdown about how even if it was unintentional, it’s violence, and there needs to be recompense.

[temporal1]

The Battle of Hastngs is a respectable analogy.

^^(not referring to forum clashes.) It’s a war in D.C., and all parts of everyday life everywhere. Battle flags+all.

Why is the Battle of Hastings in 1066 so important?

Why is it important?
The Battle of Hastings was extremely important for the history of England as it completely changed who was in charge.
The Anglo-Saxons had ruled the land for over 600 years ..

[JimFoxvog]

Since you appear to appear to support this change, and I can only assume from your rapidly progressive persona here that you make every effort to speak in the latest, up to date inclusive language, how are those of us who are normal supposed to describe a biologically born woman, who is still acknowledging the reality of their biology, like 99.9% of women out there are currently doing.

I don't support the pronoun change, but in this system of speaking one uses the "cis-" prefix to indicate one is identifying with the gender they were assigned at birth. (What a convoluted speech is needed!)

[Bootstrap]

I don't support the pronoun change, but in this system of speaking one uses the "cis-" prefix to indicate one is identifying with the gender they were assigned at birth. (What a convoluted speech is needed!)

We really can't force other people to use the words we use. When I use the word "man" or "woman", it means precisely what some people want me to call a "cis-gender-man" or "cis-gender-woman". But I would never describe myself that way. That's not my worldview at all. In my worldview, there are men, there are women, there are some people who choose to live as someone of the opposite gender. So I use words that express my worldview.

So if someone explains to me, with exasperation, that I am a "cis-gender-man" and I need to understand that means that my birth gender matches my gender ... I can't change the way they speak to express their worldview. I use words that express mine. They will probably be able to change the dictionaries, our culture really does seem to be changing in that direction.

But shouting more loudly at them, insulting them more forcefully, that won't do anything to explain our worldview. And if they associate our worldview with hostility, with insults, with toxicity, it's going to make our worldview harder for them to accept.

[Ken]

Since you appear to appear to support this change, and I can only assume from your rapidly progressive persona here that you make every effort to speak in the latest, up to date inclusive language, how are those of us who are normal supposed to describe a biologically born woman, who is still acknowledging the reality of their biology, like 99.9% of women out there are currently doing.

I don't support the pronoun change, but in this system of speaking one uses the "cis-" prefix to indicate one is identifying with the gender they were assigned at birth. (What a convoluted speech is needed!)

I get this once in a rare while while teaching. Out of 15 years of teaching I’ve only had a very small number with name changes from masculine to feminine or vice versa, or who have different pronouns from the obvious. No more than can be counted on one hand. I just make a note of it and use whatever name they want used as a common courtesy that I extend to all kids. Most LGBT kids don’t change their names or pronouns. I don’t actually use pronouns much at all, I just address kids by their names. 99% of the time it is a Zachary who wants to be known as Zach, or a Nathaniel who wants to be known as Nate. Or a Katharine who wants to be known as Katy. Or kids who use their middle names not their first names. That sort of thing. I have lots of Hispanic kids including 3 “Angels” this year. Two of whom go with the Spanish pronunciation and one who uses the English pronunciation. And I have a lot of Asian kids with difficult to pronounce names. I just make notes on my attendance roster and eventually get it all memorized. You can be a jerk about it and deliberately mis-name or mis-pronounce kids names. But what is the point of that? They just end up thinking you are a jerk and stop paying attention. That’s bad teaching. Most of these kids get enough hostility and disrespect in their lives. They don’t need it from their teachers too.

[nett]

I don't support the pronoun change, but in this system of speaking one uses the "cis-" prefix to indicate one is identifying with the gender they were assigned at birth. (What a convoluted speech is needed!)

We really can't force other people to use the words we use. When I use the word "man" or "woman", it means precisely what some people want me to call a "cis-gender-man" or "cis-gender-woman". But I would never describe myself that way. That's not my worldview at all. In my worldview, there are men, there are women, there are some people who choose to live as someone of the opposite gender. So I use words that express my worldview.

So if someone explains to me, with exasperation, that I am a "cis-gender-man" and I need to understand that means that my birth gender matches my gender ... I can't change the way they speak to express their worldview. I use words that express mine. They will probably be able to change the dictionaries, our culture really does seem to be changing in that direction.

But shouting more loudly at them, insulting them more forcefully, that won't do anything to explain our worldview. And if they associate our worldview with hostility, with insults, with toxicity, it's going to make our worldview harder for them to accept.

I agree with you, and I would not personally feel a need to correct someone else's speech, and if someone personally asked me to use their preferred pronouns, I would try to respect that. The exception would be if I was 100% certain about their biological sex, in which case I cannot lie. But I don't feel a compulsion to ask everyone their birth sex either.

The culture is really not changing though. The vast majority of people are still using normal words with their objective meaning, but looking with bewilderment at the formerly trustworthy institutions (depending on what you ask) that have been taken over by a tiny minority of absolute lunatics, who are pushing things like this definition change.