I've been reading both Katie and Jesse's work for at least five years and have never gotten the sense that either one of them fails to take issues like women's prisons seriously. For instance, they've both taken a fair amount of heat for defending JK Rowling's criticisms of self-ID and the danger she says that introduces into female-only spaces like women's shelters.
I must respectfully disagree. Many transgender people understand that changing one's gender isn't the same as changing one's sex. I think those that think they can change their sex still deserve what's ultimately a simple, harmless courtesy, one that conveys respect for human individuality and how profoundly our self-conceptions vary. If I have dinner at someone's house and they ask everyone to hold hands while they pray, I wouldn't refuse to do so because it might convey acceptance of what I think is a false belief that humans can communicate with gods.
Your example is lacking because bowing your head is largely passive when you let others pray aloud.
Would you make the sign of the cross if you didn't believe? I know atheists who won't say the pledge because of the "under God" part. Would you say that they should if they were in the presence of others for whom saying the pledge is important?
I used to feel the way you did but I've changed my mind on it.
"I think those that think they can change their sex still deserve what's ultimately a simple, harmless courtesy," this is what they want, especially from women (playing on female socialization to make others comfortable). Pronouns are rohypnol: https://fairplayforwomen.com/pronouns/
I've read many a tweet from trans people online that very much DO think that they're changing their sex. Males claiming to be "adult human females." At first the line was that there was a clear distinction between the two, but more and more often we see that they're used as synonyms.
Anorexics have the false perception that they're overweight. If someone dangerously thin said that they're fat out loud and expected you to agree, would you? Is it kind to reinforce someone's false perceptions?
If I am in the presence of someone that says they are trans-identified, I'll use the pronouns in talking WITH them as I would anyone else: "you," or their name. When they're not in my presence there shouldn't any expectation that I affirm their self-perception.
Women in prison, most who are survivors of sexual assault are being locked up with violent males because people in authority don't want to be unkind and say that humans cannot change sex.
"Pronouns are rohypnol" is lacking, because (besides being melodramatic) rohhypnol acts on everybody in a similar (biological) way. The way that you respond to pronouns reflects your individual perspective and opinions.
I can object to biological males in biological female prisons while showing courtesy to the relatively few human beings who happen to feel more like one gender than the one their biology would normally inform. That some people don't isn't evidence that we shouldn't be courteous or respectful of people's self-identities. The idea that respecting the average transgender person's preferred pronouns means that you'll naturally allow transgender women into biological women's spaces is demonstrably untrue.
I feel like you're reacting to pronouns in the same black-and-white way that transgender activists do. I don't share my preferred pronouns. Some would say that they know how I feel about trans issues because of that. They're just as wrong as people who say they know how people who respect transgender pronouns feel. Like Jesse says, it's complicated. The fewer assumptions we make about these truly insignificant personal details, the less distracting they'll be from the more serious issues (like transgender women in biological women's prisons and biological women's sports).
Agree to disagree because I don't see the need to participate in that to have a conversation with someone that doesn't use sex-based pronouns. I'd use "you" or their name. You still haven't made it clear in which situations one would be expected to use someone's wrong-sex pronouns in their presence.
I don't think Jesse's any more convincing in his "it's complicated" stance when it comes to sex denialism.
You've never answered whether an atheist should say the pledge if it was a show of respect for people who see value in it? Or if you would go along with small, yet significant markers of some people of faith like making the Sign of the Cross? Or is it that we don't need to respect people of religious faith, only gender faith?
If I take your point that holding hands and bowing one's head at a prayer is too passive, then saying the pledge would be entirely too active! The pledge requires you to do just that, pledge allegiance.
I just think that respecting people's pronoun is a simple and easy act of courtesy and respect with no danger that it necessitates allowing for the most radical demands of the trans community, while increasing the odds of constructive communication.
You really wouldn't ever use them? Even to a person's face or when directly asked? I have a really hard time believing this of anyone. Even Nina Paley admits she doesn't actually stick to this in most IRL situations.
When I'm in a conversation with someone I'd most often use the pronoun "you" or possibly their name. I don't understand why people think this is rude. Third person pronouns are most often used when the person being referred to isn't even present, therefore people requesting that you use them are trying to influence your perception of them to match their (false) self-perception. Compelled speech is compelled thought.
If someone's self-image is so fragile that they seek to compel how others speak about them when they're not even there, pronouns are the least of their problems.
I’m probably inferring because I’ve listened to them enough to know they wouldn’t defend female-only spaces.
I've been reading both Katie and Jesse's work for at least five years and have never gotten the sense that either one of them fails to take issues like women's prisons seriously. For instance, they've both taken a fair amount of heat for defending JK Rowling's criticisms of self-ID and the danger she says that introduces into female-only spaces like women's shelters.
They also use preferred pronouns, which conveys acceptance of the false belief that humans can change sex.
I must respectfully disagree. Many transgender people understand that changing one's gender isn't the same as changing one's sex. I think those that think they can change their sex still deserve what's ultimately a simple, harmless courtesy, one that conveys respect for human individuality and how profoundly our self-conceptions vary. If I have dinner at someone's house and they ask everyone to hold hands while they pray, I wouldn't refuse to do so because it might convey acceptance of what I think is a false belief that humans can communicate with gods.
Your example is lacking because bowing your head is largely passive when you let others pray aloud.
Would you make the sign of the cross if you didn't believe? I know atheists who won't say the pledge because of the "under God" part. Would you say that they should if they were in the presence of others for whom saying the pledge is important?
I used to feel the way you did but I've changed my mind on it.
"I think those that think they can change their sex still deserve what's ultimately a simple, harmless courtesy," this is what they want, especially from women (playing on female socialization to make others comfortable). Pronouns are rohypnol: https://fairplayforwomen.com/pronouns/
I've read many a tweet from trans people online that very much DO think that they're changing their sex. Males claiming to be "adult human females." At first the line was that there was a clear distinction between the two, but more and more often we see that they're used as synonyms.
Anorexics have the false perception that they're overweight. If someone dangerously thin said that they're fat out loud and expected you to agree, would you? Is it kind to reinforce someone's false perceptions?
If I am in the presence of someone that says they are trans-identified, I'll use the pronouns in talking WITH them as I would anyone else: "you," or their name. When they're not in my presence there shouldn't any expectation that I affirm their self-perception.
Women in prison, most who are survivors of sexual assault are being locked up with violent males because people in authority don't want to be unkind and say that humans cannot change sex.
The people at the women's shelter in Ontario showed this guy a simple, harmless courtesy, when they allowed him to enter because he said he was a woman. Unfortunately it wasn't so harmless, because he allegedly raped a women in the shelter. https://reduxx.info/male-sex-offender-identified-as-woman-to-access-womens-shelter-allegedly-raped-a-female-resident/
"Pronouns are rohypnol" is lacking, because (besides being melodramatic) rohhypnol acts on everybody in a similar (biological) way. The way that you respond to pronouns reflects your individual perspective and opinions.
I can object to biological males in biological female prisons while showing courtesy to the relatively few human beings who happen to feel more like one gender than the one their biology would normally inform. That some people don't isn't evidence that we shouldn't be courteous or respectful of people's self-identities. The idea that respecting the average transgender person's preferred pronouns means that you'll naturally allow transgender women into biological women's spaces is demonstrably untrue.
I feel like you're reacting to pronouns in the same black-and-white way that transgender activists do. I don't share my preferred pronouns. Some would say that they know how I feel about trans issues because of that. They're just as wrong as people who say they know how people who respect transgender pronouns feel. Like Jesse says, it's complicated. The fewer assumptions we make about these truly insignificant personal details, the less distracting they'll be from the more serious issues (like transgender women in biological women's prisons and biological women's sports).
Agree to disagree because I don't see the need to participate in that to have a conversation with someone that doesn't use sex-based pronouns. I'd use "you" or their name. You still haven't made it clear in which situations one would be expected to use someone's wrong-sex pronouns in their presence.
I don't think Jesse's any more convincing in his "it's complicated" stance when it comes to sex denialism.
You've never answered whether an atheist should say the pledge if it was a show of respect for people who see value in it? Or if you would go along with small, yet significant markers of some people of faith like making the Sign of the Cross? Or is it that we don't need to respect people of religious faith, only gender faith?
No one should be required to say the pledge, and many atheists who do simply recite the 1942 version rather than the 1954 version.
If I take your point that holding hands and bowing one's head at a prayer is too passive, then saying the pledge would be entirely too active! The pledge requires you to do just that, pledge allegiance.
I just think that respecting people's pronoun is a simple and easy act of courtesy and respect with no danger that it necessitates allowing for the most radical demands of the trans community, while increasing the odds of constructive communication.
Agree to disagree and Happy Holidays!
You really wouldn't ever use them? Even to a person's face or when directly asked? I have a really hard time believing this of anyone. Even Nina Paley admits she doesn't actually stick to this in most IRL situations.
I meant on the podcast.
When I'm in a conversation with someone I'd most often use the pronoun "you" or possibly their name. I don't understand why people think this is rude. Third person pronouns are most often used when the person being referred to isn't even present, therefore people requesting that you use them are trying to influence your perception of them to match their (false) self-perception. Compelled speech is compelled thought.
If someone's self-image is so fragile that they seek to compel how others speak about them when they're not even there, pronouns are the least of their problems.
If you believe that, I guess it conveys that meaning to you. That doesn't mean that it is what Jesse or Katie believe.
People manage to find an awful lot of content in pronouns.