I don’t recall judging anyone, except to ask others to not respond to an otherwise innocent usage of a particular pronoun with negativity, id est replying with phrases like “don’t be a dick” and the like.
I also don’t believe I spoke at any length about what I have or have not learned about human cruelty, except, again, to ask others not to respond to an innocent usage of a particular pronoun with negativity.
I did not see any evidence of the original poster dehumanizing anyone, or mistreating anyone, and I don’t believe I have done so either.
I would also ask you to please not make assumptions about my personal views or beliefs. You’ll note I spoke about language, not about my personal opinions. Consequently, anything you think you know about my personal views and beliefs is mere conjecture.
And finally, while I would like to express my sympathy over the misfortunes you personally have suffered, I do not see their bearing on the topic at hand, considering, as you pointed out, I was discussing language. Additionally, while I do not wish to further offend you, I feel compelled to inform you that, merely from my point of view as a layman, you seem to be psychologically projecting your various admitted traumas and resentments onto myself and others who played no part in them, and that it seems your prior negative experiences significantly bias you to interpret my and others’ commentary in an unduly negative light.
“Legal wish”. As in a wish that is legal. i.e. ‘there’s nothing wrong with it’.
“I say again - a pronoun is not a name. I can refer to you as “it” all day long, no matter what your legal name is, and no one has a leg to stand on objecting to that.”
You can refer to me as ‘it’, but it would be impolite. You seem to be confused about what is right, and what is legal. Gender identity is largely a social construct, the pronoun you choose isn’t actually all that different to your name. If you identify as a John, then calling you Steve would be combative; equally if you identify as a woman, referring to you as ‘he’ is a conscious decision to undermine that persons identity.
If you don’t give a shit what someones wishes are that’s your prerogative, but it makes you a bit of an asshole.
You seem to be completely missing my point.
The term ‘politcal correctness’ (normally followed by ‘gone mad!’) is only ever (edit: generally) used by the kind of person that would claim being allowed to be gay in public is ‘politically correct’, or by not harassing someone because of the colour of their skin they’re being ‘politically correct’. What you’ve defined is the perspective of those who abuse it. That it refers to some kind of over the top politeness, when in reality, 9/10 it’s referring to common decency. What you’ve described is its beginnings, intentions, its roots - not how it’s actually used. You’re clearly missing the subtext of what I’m saying.
If your view differs I can only assume we live in different places (can’t account for regional differences in terminology) or that you fall on the wrong side of its userbase.
You seem to be confused about what is right, and what is legal.
You seem to have missed my comments on the nature of manners and morals. Just because you personally feel something is poor manners or amoral doesn’t mean that others do, much less that it actually is. We can argue opinion until we’re both blue in the face, but we’d get nowhere. I’m simply asking you to respect that fact that other people are going to disagree with you about the things you feel are absolutely or objectively “right”, because nothing is absolutely or objectively right.
We also have very different definitions of the term politically
correct. Irrelevant of its origins my definition was on the money, I
can assure you. The term is only ever used by the kind of person that
would claim being allowed to be gay in public is ‘politically
correct’, or by not harassing someone because of the colour of their
skin they’re being ‘politically correct’.
Tread carefully. You’re essentially admitting that you’re willfully ignoring the quite recent and certainly relevant history of the phrase and its usage, and then you’re making some rather sweeping generalizations such as “only ever used” and “the kind of person that”, as well as insisting that your understanding of the phrase is the correct one without citing any sort of evidence to support your claims.
If your view differs I can only assume we live in different places or
that you fall on the wrong side of its userbase.
You may have actually hit upon a significant point.
People aren’t all the same, and don’t all come from the same places, share the same values, or use the same words or phrases to mean the same things. Someone used a phrase in a way you weren’t familiar with and you immediately assumed that they were using it in another way and chastized them for that assumed sleight.
I tried to point out that you were jumping to conclusions, and you’ve steadfastly refused to consider the possibility of my position being even remotely valid. Instead, you seem to be convinced that you are absolutely in the right, and that I and the poster I was speaking in defense of are unconscionably and incontrovertibly wrong. I’m beginning to feel that we may not be able to reach any sort of middle ground, because it feels as though you refuse to alter your opinions or views in the slightest.
This is getting ridiculous. I clearly stated that I used “s/he” as an abbreviation due to describing Manning’s past acts as a public “man” but wanting to actually acknowledge/honor her right to identify as a woman currently. It was not intended to be some sort of “she-male” dig that some folks clearly took it as. I did not realize the term was sometime used as such. I’m sure I could find some transgender/non-single-gender identified person who actually prefers the term, if I looked. I clearly articulated that I am completely supportive of LGBT individuals and causes. I apologized.
And yet – ironically, people are still going on about me being a “dick” (not the best insult to sling when trying to be uppity about how to not sound insulting when referring to people negatively using gendered language) and the entire point of my post has been ignored.
I’m a BoingBoing reader. When I was 12 or 13 I was buying the physical 'zine. Is this really going to be the main blog I read if I’m the kind of person who hates on transgendered people? Really? Benefit of the doubt and all that…
I edited this actually, but unfortunately too late, as I agree I was being too sweeping with it. But frankly I think you have it the wrong way round. This is the current usage, what you describe is how it was used when coined, several decades ago.
"You may have actually hit upon a significant point.
People aren’t all the same, and don’t all come from the same places, share the same values, or use the same words or phrases to mean the same things. Someone used a phrase in a way you weren’t familiar with and you immediately assumed that they were using it in another way and chastized them for that assumed sleight."
It would be helpful if you indicated where you’re from. I’m hoping the US? If you’re from the UK then the point is moot, as that’s where it is abused in exactly the way I’ve described.
–
And in summary I’m afraid that no, I don’t think your point is valid. The only important point I can see that you’ve raised is that morals differ between people. Which is undeniable. But by that token you could claim that having control over ones identity is ‘wrong’. I would counter that with ‘you are a bigot that shows little regard for others’. They’re both opinons, but I’d like to see a reasoned debate for the former. I could provide a hundred examples of opinions which would be considered wrong by the vast majority of people. What use is that?
There are different kinds of opinons. Not all created equal.
You do have a problem with the Internet, in that you lack the ability to have conversations with others you may disagree with, that may actually be interesting and productive exchanges, and instead instantly refer to people who offend you as “trolls.”
Because you don’t get to decide what gender someone identifies as?
(also I was berating the use of the term ‘politically correct’, in this case).
I can’t believe this is even a discussion. If I referred to Xeni as a ‘he’, I would be corrected. If someone refers to Manning as a ‘he’, they should be corrected. This has become a meta argument about manners, and I have no interest in arguing about whether good manners are ‘right’ or ‘wrong’, because it’s farcical.
In addition to not being a name, a pronoun also is most certainly not a person.
Anyone can use whatever pronoun they want to refer to people, as long as they do so in a way that isn’t obviously disparaging. Someone choosing one that you personally don’t like doesn’t mean they’re somehow “deciding what gender someone else identifies as”. Don’t be absurd.
In my humble opinion, Chelsea Manning will probably be known as Bradley, at least until the collective memory of the Wiki Leaks/Collateral Murder is forgotten, which hopefully will be never. We need to remember our mistakes. The mistake of going to war on lies, the mistake of romanticizing it, and the mistaken belief that a change will come without our hard work and courage to stand up and make happen. If Chelsea will serve the time with pride, she’ll probably bare the burden of being known as Bradley equally well. Chelsea will be well known enough to friends, family, and fans, but Bradley will be the hero/villain history remembers. The world needs more of them, Chelsea or Bradley, to stand on principle or stand in the way of the the boot of the government.
I’m as always perfectly happy to be corrected on this, but I don’t think any trans person is under any illusion that there is not a burden to be borne when they transition. Or that it will be easy, or that everyone will accept it. Just that it’s better to do that than live as a gender that they don’t fit.
Reading her statement, It looks as though Chelsea is smarter and more self-aware than most, and knows exactly what she’s getting in to, and what it will be like, but the same bravery that led her to the difficult but right choice in leaking documents seems to have led her to the difficult but right choice to live her life as she feels, even though she’s about to go in to what I can imagine is not the best place to do so.
Regarding the He/She thing, my wife and I had this discussion a while back. She has a friend from her grade school days who is a trans guy now, but wasn’t when he was in grade school. We weren’t sure between ourselves which pronoun to use when referring to him back when he wasn’t a him. I went to a sleepover with him? Or her?
I don’t think we ever solidified what we should have done, so this thread is relevant to my interests.
You can say “when she was a boy” or even “when she was a ‘he’,” in the situations where it’s relevant. The subject of the sentence is still “she.”
When you say "I went to a sleepover with George"you’re referring to a real person who exists now. That’s who you had a sleepover with, even if George was younger then. You don’t say “The person I had a sleepover with is long gone, his body then morphed into the person we call ‘George’ today.” They’re not two different people (philosophical arguments about not being able to jump in the same river twice notwithstanding).
Likewise, we don’t say “When Manning (of the present) was young, Manning (of the past) liked to run around.” No, you’re referring to the same Manning, the person in the present.
Thus the pronoun in any sentence sentence regarding Manning present or past (or future!) is simply “she”, because the object of reference is simple the person in the present. “She used to run around”: the Manning of the present used to run around.
As it stands, broadly acknowledging “transexuality” as if it were biological is a reasonably new social phenomena. BB has evidently made the editorial decision to accede to Pvt. Manning’s wishes, and it’s their right to do so. However, his wishes don’t matter to me until he’s paid his dues and walked the talk for a bit. At this point, I suspect his personality is even less stable than it was while a gay man in the DADT-era Army. So, I don’t think it worth the hassle to take seriously everything he says until he’s had time to settle in to his new life doing hard time.
If I were to state that it’s immoral to cut off someone’s hands for
stealing, or to rape someone, or oppress them, I’m sure it wouldn’t be
questioned. But there are cultures that would disagree.
