info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
gender self-identification (was: Re: Pearls Before Swine: Word Of The Year)
5 views
Skip to first unread message
Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
Jan 1, 2022, 2:53:46 PM1/1/22
to
From: AAAAAA::HELBIG "Phillip Helbig" 1-JAN-2022 20:50:12.48
To: SMTP%"lispa...@crommatograph.info"
CC: HELBIG
Subj: Re: Pearls Before Swine: Word Of The Year
In article <d8wpzncq...@mid.crommatograph.info>, you write:
> >>>> You're "team TERF"? All right, noted, and 10-foot pole put into business
> >>>> position.
> >>>
> >>> Calling someone with a another position a name intended to be derogatory
> >>> is usually a sign that you have no valid arguments.
> >>
> >> I'm not name-calling here, but quoting a self-characterization of
> >> Chappelle's from exactly the context that Lynn has expressed agreement
> >> to.
> >
> > I'm referring to the use of "team TERF".
>
> Yes. In case you missed it, Chappelle said "I'm team TERF".
Who said:
You're "team TERF"? All right, noted, and 10-foot pole put into business position.
> To which others commented, how would he feel if I said "I'm team KKK".
In case you missed it, Chappelle is a comedian.
> >> The problem is that you use "woman" in two different senses. In this
> >> discussion, you use it to mean "person with the typical anatomy
> >> associated with XX chromosomes", but then, when you go out into the
> >> world, assuming you're a sensible and polite person, you'll extend the
> >> term to people with an appearance or demeanor that is considered
> >> "feminine" by society, and to at least most people who tell you they're
> >> women. So why not use a more accurate term in the first case, like
> >> "person with female anatomy" or, to the point, "person with a uterus"?
> >
> > Because it is stupid. Anyone who thinks that appearance and demeanor is
> > what determines if one is a man or a woman, in any sense, apparently
> > wants to go back to the gender stereotypes of the 1950s and earlier,
> > throwing out all the progress, emancipation, and so on since then.
>
> I see where you're coming from, and I don't like it myself, but it's the
> only way I get people not to address me as "Sir". When I'm alone at
> home, I don't care what I wear, I know I don't fit in those silly boxes
> of "man" and "woman", but they are so deeply ingrained in society that
> we have to make concessions. Which is to say no, not that much progress
> has been made to *ignore* the difference, as in not categorize every
> person at first glance, as in not use "Sir" or "Ma'am", "Ms" and "Mr",
> "he" and "she" at all, or I would've been able to continue living as a
> "man who doesn't fit any of the stereotypes", but it became unbearable.
> Being addressed as "Ma'am" is not ideal to me, but it's a bit better.
If being called "Sir" is your biggest problem, then congratulations.
How about a button "don't call me `sir'"? If that is a problem, why is
using THE SAME OUTDATED TRADITIONS to get people to call you "Ma'am" an
improvement?
> > Sure, you can have any demeanor or appearance you want, but what is
> > gained by claiming to be something you are not as well?
>
> I am certainly not what "a man" is in society.
A man, according to almost everyone on the planet, is a person with XY
chromosomes and associated anatomy.
> Gender is real indeed,
> gender as opposed to sex, gender as a social category. As long as there
> is gender segregation, which I wish there wasn't, I simply fit in much
> better with the women (even though I don't claim that title, but the
> most important thing is that I'm not a man, anatomy be damned.) And I've
> been quite well received in many women circles, and I feel at ease,
> where in men's circles, I was so often on edge.
I have more women friends than men friends. I feel more comfortable
with them. But I am a straight "cis" man. Why should I have to
identify as something else in order to spend my time with people I get
along with?
I remember when there were tom-boys who were also heterosexual girls
(and very attractive to some heterosexual boys) and dandies who were
neither gay nor trans. Why not just let people be people and not try to
redefine words already in use and, in the process, re-inforce 1950s
gender roles?
> > If I put on a uniform and identify as a general, should I have access to
> > the pentagon?
>
> That is very different. Who can show a certificate of having done all
> the courses, exams and internships to qualify as woman or man?
That's the point. You can't.
> Not at all. Discrimination isn't done by penises, it's done by "the
> dicks attached to them" (as a gay guy once complained in a different
> context). It's a subset of men who behave in bad and gross ways that
> society has suggested to them ("boys will be boys") or at least allowed
> them to do as men. And there are even some trans men among them. And I
> can't stand being associated with them in any way.
You are wrong. Where there is segregation, such as toilets, changing
rooms, etc., it is done on the basis of biological men and women,
regardless of how they behave.
> > rapists identifying as women to be moved to women's prisons, etc.).
>
> But that can't be an argument to put all the real trans women in men's
> prisons, where they're predetermined to be victims of rape and violence.
It works the other way as well. If you can't do the time, don't do the
crime.
> In most cases it's not that difficult to see if such a
> self-identification is credible.
The whole point is the credibility is no longer a criterion.
Self-identification is the ONLY thing that is allowed to matter.
To: SMTP%"lispa...@crommatograph.info"
CC: HELBIG
Subj: Re: Pearls Before Swine: Word Of The Year
In article <d8wpzncq...@mid.crommatograph.info>, you write:
> >>>> You're "team TERF"? All right, noted, and 10-foot pole put into business
> >>>> position.
> >>>
> >>> Calling someone with a another position a name intended to be derogatory
> >>> is usually a sign that you have no valid arguments.
> >>
> >> I'm not name-calling here, but quoting a self-characterization of
> >> Chappelle's from exactly the context that Lynn has expressed agreement
> >> to.
> >
> > I'm referring to the use of "team TERF".
>
> Yes. In case you missed it, Chappelle said "I'm team TERF".
Who said:
You're "team TERF"? All right, noted, and 10-foot pole put into business position.
> To which others commented, how would he feel if I said "I'm team KKK".
In case you missed it, Chappelle is a comedian.
> >> The problem is that you use "woman" in two different senses. In this
> >> discussion, you use it to mean "person with the typical anatomy
> >> associated with XX chromosomes", but then, when you go out into the
> >> world, assuming you're a sensible and polite person, you'll extend the
> >> term to people with an appearance or demeanor that is considered
> >> "feminine" by society, and to at least most people who tell you they're
> >> women. So why not use a more accurate term in the first case, like
> >> "person with female anatomy" or, to the point, "person with a uterus"?
> >
> > Because it is stupid. Anyone who thinks that appearance and demeanor is
> > what determines if one is a man or a woman, in any sense, apparently
> > wants to go back to the gender stereotypes of the 1950s and earlier,
> > throwing out all the progress, emancipation, and so on since then.
>
> I see where you're coming from, and I don't like it myself, but it's the
> only way I get people not to address me as "Sir". When I'm alone at
> home, I don't care what I wear, I know I don't fit in those silly boxes
> of "man" and "woman", but they are so deeply ingrained in society that
> we have to make concessions. Which is to say no, not that much progress
> has been made to *ignore* the difference, as in not categorize every
> person at first glance, as in not use "Sir" or "Ma'am", "Ms" and "Mr",
> "he" and "she" at all, or I would've been able to continue living as a
> "man who doesn't fit any of the stereotypes", but it became unbearable.
> Being addressed as "Ma'am" is not ideal to me, but it's a bit better.
If being called "Sir" is your biggest problem, then congratulations.
How about a button "don't call me `sir'"? If that is a problem, why is
using THE SAME OUTDATED TRADITIONS to get people to call you "Ma'am" an
improvement?
> > Sure, you can have any demeanor or appearance you want, but what is
> > gained by claiming to be something you are not as well?
>
> I am certainly not what "a man" is in society.
A man, according to almost everyone on the planet, is a person with XY
chromosomes and associated anatomy.
> Gender is real indeed,
> gender as opposed to sex, gender as a social category. As long as there
> is gender segregation, which I wish there wasn't, I simply fit in much
> better with the women (even though I don't claim that title, but the
> most important thing is that I'm not a man, anatomy be damned.) And I've
> been quite well received in many women circles, and I feel at ease,
> where in men's circles, I was so often on edge.
I have more women friends than men friends. I feel more comfortable
with them. But I am a straight "cis" man. Why should I have to
identify as something else in order to spend my time with people I get
along with?
I remember when there were tom-boys who were also heterosexual girls
(and very attractive to some heterosexual boys) and dandies who were
neither gay nor trans. Why not just let people be people and not try to
redefine words already in use and, in the process, re-inforce 1950s
gender roles?
> > If I put on a uniform and identify as a general, should I have access to
> > the pentagon?
>
> That is very different. Who can show a certificate of having done all
> the courses, exams and internships to qualify as woman or man?
That's the point. You can't.
> Not at all. Discrimination isn't done by penises, it's done by "the
> dicks attached to them" (as a gay guy once complained in a different
> context). It's a subset of men who behave in bad and gross ways that
> society has suggested to them ("boys will be boys") or at least allowed
> them to do as men. And there are even some trans men among them. And I
> can't stand being associated with them in any way.
You are wrong. Where there is segregation, such as toilets, changing
rooms, etc., it is done on the basis of biological men and women,
regardless of how they behave.
> > rapists identifying as women to be moved to women's prisons, etc.).
>
> But that can't be an argument to put all the real trans women in men's
> prisons, where they're predetermined to be victims of rape and violence.
It works the other way as well. If you can't do the time, don't do the
crime.
> In most cases it's not that difficult to see if such a
> self-identification is credible.
The whole point is the credibility is no longer a criterion.
Self-identification is the ONLY thing that is allowed to matter.
J. Clarke
Jan 1, 2022, 4:00:21 PM1/1/22
to
On Sat, 1 Jan 2022 19:53:45 -0000 (UTC),
hel...@asclothestro.multivax.de (Phillip Helbig (undress to reply))
wrote:
One of those currently appears to be making a very nice living as an
influencer on Youtube (evidence of nice living--she owns a house, a
separate shop, and a half a dozen cars one of which is a Ferrari and
not because her daddy's rich; evidence of tomboyism--she can weld
titanium and not because it's her job).
>and dandies who were
>neither gay nor trans. Why not just let people be people and not try to
>redefine words already in use and, in the process, re-inforce 1950s
>gender roles?
>
>> > If I put on a uniform and identify as a general, should I have access to
>> > the pentagon?
>>
>> That is very different. Who can show a certificate of having done all
>> the courses, exams and internships to qualify as woman or man?
>
>That's the point. You can't.
>
>> Not at all. Discrimination isn't done by penises, it's done by "the
>> dicks attached to them" (as a gay guy once complained in a different
>> context). It's a subset of men who behave in bad and gross ways that
>> society has suggested to them ("boys will be boys") or at least allowed
>> them to do as men. And there are even some trans men among them. And I
>> can't stand being associated with them in any way.
>
>You are wrong. Where there is segregation, such as toilets, changing
>rooms, etc., it is done on the basis of biological men and women,
>regardless of how they behave.
Not necessarily. I understand that Thailand handles it as "Men",
"Women", and "Other". In the very woke company where I work, you're
whatever you say you are for that purpose. Personally I think the
bathroom labeling should be changed from "Men" and "Women" to
"Penises" and "non-penises" or words to that effect.
>> > rapists identifying as women to be moved to women's prisons, etc.).
>>
>> But that can't be an argument to put all the real trans women in men's
>> prisons, where they're predetermined to be victims of rape and violence.
>
>It works the other way as well. If you can't do the time, don't do the
>crime.
Yep. If you want to be treated as male don't complain when you get
locked up with a bunch of convicted rapists.
hel...@asclothestro.multivax.de (Phillip Helbig (undress to reply))
wrote:
influencer on Youtube (evidence of nice living--she owns a house, a
separate shop, and a half a dozen cars one of which is a Ferrari and
not because her daddy's rich; evidence of tomboyism--she can weld
titanium and not because it's her job).
>and dandies who were
>neither gay nor trans. Why not just let people be people and not try to
>redefine words already in use and, in the process, re-inforce 1950s
>gender roles?
>
>> > If I put on a uniform and identify as a general, should I have access to
>> > the pentagon?
>>
>> That is very different. Who can show a certificate of having done all
>> the courses, exams and internships to qualify as woman or man?
>
>That's the point. You can't.
>
>> Not at all. Discrimination isn't done by penises, it's done by "the
>> dicks attached to them" (as a gay guy once complained in a different
>> context). It's a subset of men who behave in bad and gross ways that
>> society has suggested to them ("boys will be boys") or at least allowed
>> them to do as men. And there are even some trans men among them. And I
>> can't stand being associated with them in any way.
>
>You are wrong. Where there is segregation, such as toilets, changing
>rooms, etc., it is done on the basis of biological men and women,
>regardless of how they behave.
"Women", and "Other". In the very woke company where I work, you're
whatever you say you are for that purpose. Personally I think the
bathroom labeling should be changed from "Men" and "Women" to
"Penises" and "non-penises" or words to that effect.
>> > rapists identifying as women to be moved to women's prisons, etc.).
>>
>> But that can't be an argument to put all the real trans women in men's
>> prisons, where they're predetermined to be victims of rape and violence.
>
>It works the other way as well. If you can't do the time, don't do the
>crime.
locked up with a bunch of convicted rapists.
Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
Jan 1, 2022, 4:53:47 PM1/1/22
to
In article <cjf1tgdknpadpduec...@4ax.com>, J. Clarke
doesn't seem to be a similar "transmen are men" crowd) would want to be
in the "women" category, not the "other category".
> Personally I think the
> bathroom labeling should be changed from "Men" and "Women" to
> "Penises" and "non-penises" or words to that effect.
What would that accomplish? The "transwomen are women" crowd would not
accept it.
<jclarke...@gmail.com> writes:
> Not necessarily. I understand that Thailand handles it as "Men",
> "Women", and "Other".
I wouldn't mind that. But the "transwomen are women" crowd (there
> Not necessarily. I understand that Thailand handles it as "Men",
> "Women", and "Other".
doesn't seem to be a similar "transmen are men" crowd) would want to be
in the "women" category, not the "other category".
> Personally I think the
> bathroom labeling should be changed from "Men" and "Women" to
> "Penises" and "non-penises" or words to that effect.
accept it.
J. Clarke
Jan 1, 2022, 10:48:26 PM1/1/22
to
On Sat, 1 Jan 2022 21:53:46 -0000 (UTC),
>In article <cjf1tgdknpadpduec...@4ax.com>, J. Clarke
><jclarke...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Not necessarily. I understand that Thailand handles it as "Men",
>> "Women", and "Other".
>
>I wouldn't mind that. But the "transwomen are women" crowd (there
>doesn't seem to be a similar "transmen are men" crowd) would want to be
>in the "women" category, not the "other category".
The Thais don't give them a choice.
><jclarke...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Not necessarily. I understand that Thailand handles it as "Men",
>> "Women", and "Other".
>
>I wouldn't mind that. But the "transwomen are women" crowd (there
>doesn't seem to be a similar "transmen are men" crowd) would want to be
>in the "women" category, not the "other category".
>
>> Personally I think the
>> bathroom labeling should be changed from "Men" and "Women" to
>> "Penises" and "non-penises" or words to that effect.
>
>What would that accomplish? The "transwomen are women" crowd would not
>accept it.
It changes the issue from gender to anatomy.
>> Personally I think the
>> bathroom labeling should be changed from "Men" and "Women" to
>> "Penises" and "non-penises" or words to that effect.
>
>What would that accomplish? The "transwomen are women" crowd would not
>accept it.
Your Name
Jan 2, 2022, 1:25:52 AM1/2/22
to
whatever they want in their heads, but with a few very rare exceptions,
babies are born either male or female, and it simply is not possible to
change that ... short of full head transplant surgery.
Paul S Person
Jan 2, 2022, 1:04:09 PM1/2/22
to
On Sat, 01 Jan 2022 16:00:08 -0500, J. Clarke
<jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snippo>
>Not necessarily. I understand that Thailand handles it as "Men",
>"Women", and "Other". In the very woke company where I work, you're
>whatever you say you are for that purpose. Personally I think the
>bathroom labeling should be changed from "Men" and "Women" to
>"Penises" and "non-penises" or words to that effect.
How about the lables in Donald E. Westlake's Dortmunder novels for a
bar the gang meets in:
Setters
Pointers
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
<jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snippo>
>Not necessarily. I understand that Thailand handles it as "Men",
>"Women", and "Other". In the very woke company where I work, you're
>whatever you say you are for that purpose. Personally I think the
>bathroom labeling should be changed from "Men" and "Women" to
>"Penises" and "non-penises" or words to that effect.
bar the gang meets in:
Setters
Pointers
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
0 new messages