Re: Nice article that mentions Skirtcafe favorably
Posted: Wed Feb 12, 2020 5:46 pm
I see no inconsistency there whatsoever.
Skirt Cafe is an on-line community dedicated to exploring, promoting and advocating skirts and kilts as a fashion choice for men. We do this in the context of men's fashion freedom --- an expansion of choices beyond those commonly available for men to inc
https://www.skirtcafe.org/forums/
This particular point invalidates quite a few of the rebuttals you made in your last comment. However, in case it isn't clear what I am saying, please let me rephrase and expand upon my point:Yonkas wrote: ↑Tue Feb 11, 2020 4:19 pm But what if you're mistaken? I know I have been. Indeed, people have even mistaken my gender, and I have never looked particularly feminine.
..Furthermore, non-trans people have been evicted from bathrooms because other people mistook their sex-atypical features to be a sign that they were transgender.
So, what would you do to account for this, once somebody corrects you? Surely you wouldn't ask them to prove it to you. That would be impolite, and might even earn you a "f**k off." I'd wager it would be easier for you to say, "sorry," and be on your way, than to escalate things.
It looks to me as though you are saying that children should be subjected to a deeply distressing misgendering based on their genetic makeup (or physical appearance resulting from it) but you would not do that to adults who would find it equally distressing.
Even if they have specifically asked you not to? Wouldn't that be intentional misgendering and disrespect?Stu wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2020 9:33 pm I will refer to them according to how they "present" - a word I have used consistently. To repeat, is someone is evidently male (e.g. facial hair, balding, male clothes, deep voice etc), then I am going to use the pronouns he/him and not she/her - and vice-versa for someone who is evidently female.
If a child presents as a boy and I use male pronouns, then I am obviously not, to use your expression, "misgendering" him - my language is simply reflecting reality as i perceive it. The same goes for a girl, a man or a woman.
It's not their choice - it's mine. I would not refer to someone as "Doctor" or "Lord" just because they felt inclined to use a title to which they were not entitled. Now if they take the trouble to attempt to appear as the sex with which they identify, then I am happy to cut them some slack on that for the reasons already stated, i.e politeness, and also that I am in no position to determine their biological sex. But let me make it patently clear: while I have an obligation to use someone's preferred name, I am under no moral obligation to refer to that person to a third party with a function word in my own language which is semantically false.
That is a massive straw man. I am saying no such thing.pelmut wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2020 11:52 pmWhat you appear to be saying is that if you meet a transwoman who has not completed her course of facial hair removal or doesn't want to wear a wig for some reason -- or a transman who is awaiting a mastectomy -- you would continue to misgender and offend them until they had changed their bodies enough to satisfy you.
If the child wishes to present as a girl, wishes to adopt the clothing worn by girls, wishes to be called by a name particular to girls and wishes to be called by certain pronouns, that is the child's chosen gender presentation, even if she is not able to do all of those things. By using the opposite pronouns you would be misgendering her; you cannot see her gender and your opinion of her physical appearance is not relevant to her or anyone else.
Formal titles like those have legal implications and cannot be used by people who are not entitled to them. Pronouns are the choice of the person to whom they apply and it is uncivil (and potentially dangerous) to delibrately refer to people in ways which offend them. You do have the freedom to choose which pronouns you use in the same way as you have the freedom to choose to walk up to someone and spit in their face, fondle their genitals or perform some equally offensive action, but you would be wise to consider the consequences before doing so.It's not their choice - it's mine. I would not refer to someone as "Doctor" or "Lord" just because they felt inclined to use a title to which they were not entitled.
Now if they take the trouble to attempt to appear as the sex with which they identify, then I am happy to cut them some slack
So titles have legal implications, but battery and sexual assault do not? Spitting in someone's face is battery, and fondling their genitals is sexual assault. How can using the wrong pronouns to refer to someone even come close to these criminal acts?!?pelmut wrote: ↑Fri Feb 14, 2020 12:09 amFormal titles like those have legal implications and cannot be used by people who are not entitled to them. Pronouns are the choice of the person to whom they apply and it is uncivil (and potentially dangerous) to delibrately refer to people in ways which offend them. You do have the freedom to choose which pronouns you use in the same way as you have the freedom to choose to walk up to someone and spit in their face, fondle their genitals or perform some equally offensive action, but you would be wise to consider the consequences before doing so.
In the U.K., deliberately misgendering someone after they have asked you to stop is also an offence and there has been a recent case where someone was sacked for refusing to stop bullying people in this way. The judge's comments when she tried to sue her employer for wrongful dismissal make interesting and enlightening reading.Dust wrote: ↑Fri Feb 14, 2020 1:57 amSo titles have legal implications, but battery and sexual assault do not? Spitting in someone's face is battery, and fondling their genitals is sexual assault.pelmut wrote: ↑Fri Feb 14, 2020 12:09 amFormal titles like those have legal implications and cannot be used by people who are not entitled to them. Pronouns are the choice of the person to whom they apply and it is uncivil (and potentially dangerous) to delibrately refer to people in ways which offend them. You do have the freedom to choose which pronouns you use in the same way as you have the freedom to choose to walk up to someone and spit in their face, fondle their genitals or perform some equally offensive action, but you would be wise to consider the consequences before doing so.
I was using these as examples of offensive behaviour that could lead to trouble. A person is able to do them but most civilised people choose not to. The majority of civilised people would make that choice out of consideration for the feelings of the other person but a few would only be deterred by the consequences, legal or otherwise.How can using the wrong pronouns to refer to someone even come close to these criminal acts?!?
Not in the U.K., the Equality Act of 2010 abolished the last remnants of that. I don't know about U.S. law, but I think I might have heard through the 'trans grapevine' if there had been any recent cases.Right or wrong, women have special legal protections. Are there not legal consequences for claiming them if you are not a woman?
I don't think trans people are any different from anyone else in this respect; if you start calling people offensive names based on your (mis)perception of their sex, gender, skin colour or any other physical aspect, you might expect that some of them would retaliate either directly or by resort to the law."Potentially dangerous" to offend... Why? Because trans people are violent? Is that what you just implied? I hope that is not what you meant, but that is how it reads.
It isn't an offence - the case was not heard under the criminal law. It was not what the judge decided, nor was empowered to decide. A relatively junior judge in an employment tribunal (not even a criminal judge) simply threw out an unlawful dismissal claim following someone being fired for misgendering (which also involved persistent harassment, allegedly). This is not caselaw as the court is too junior and the next court could decide differently. By the way, anyone can call themselves "doctor" without any legal restrictions in the UK. It's just not recognised by the state unless it is evidenced by holding the appropriate degree.
A civilised person would respect another's right to use his own language to a third party as he sees fit.
I totally agree. But that's just being a jerk and people are allowed to be jerks - and they should be challenged when they are. What you wear is a fashion choice and, while other people are free to hold opinions on what you wear, if they voice negative ones uninvited, then they can expect a negative response in return. That applies whether it is a man wearing a skirt being accused of being a drag queen, or a women in a short skirt being called a slut.pelmut wrote: ↑Fri Feb 14, 2020 1:58 pm To bring the thread back on topic, the foregoing remarks don't just apply to misgendering transpeople; they apply equally well to offending men in skirts by calling them trans, queer, drag queens or a number of other things which are insulting if they happen to be untrue -- and constitute bullying if they are done persistently. The opinion of the bully based on his interpretation of the skirt-wearer's appearance is no justification for such behaviour. It is entirely appropriate to challenge support for such justification when it appears on this forum, no matter how it is dressed up as reasoned argument and debate.