Having said that, I don't get the self-righteous refusal not to respect—within reason—others choices about how they want to be addressed. Seems like an unnecessary way to make enemies. — Baden

That's oddly one-sided. Why wouldn't the person demanding that I adopt a terminology which I find silly, at the cost of seeing me as personally affronting them, be the one who is being difficult? I'm not doing anything wrong. If a transgender woman, who has quite clearly changed their appearance to reflect the appearance roughly associated with their gender, wants to be referred to with feminine personal pronouns, then that's absolutely fine with me, but I'm simply refusing to adopt awkward, unaccustomed, and frankly ridiculous-sounding terminology which has only recently been made up - and I don't think that there's anything wrong with that, irrespective of whether that's considered offensive. The offended party is not in the right by default simply by virtue of being offended.

Why wouldn't the person demanding that I adopt a terminology which I find silly, at the cost of seeing me as personally affronting them, be the one who is being difficult? — S

Either party can be the one being difficult. Have a look at my next post and see what you think

@S

(In other words, a normatively phrased demand (You should refer to me as.../ You should not expect me to refer to you as... ) by either party short-circuits the solution from both ends.) — Baden

It sure is strange making demands of others when what you are arguing against is others making demands of you - like conforming to some way of dressing, behaving, or speaking.

Hypocrites.

How is that there are an arbitrary set of behaviors that are considered to be masculine and feminine more reasonable than what Queer Theory posits? — thewonder

How does that supposedly relate to my reply, qualifying that one ought to respect a person's chosen identity within reason?

You seem to be ignoring what I said and putting words into my mouth. It's evident that there are indeed a whole range of things, including behaviours, which are typically considered masculine or feminine. Much of it makes little sense when properly analysed, and some of it I find harmful and offensive. But it's just the way that things are, like it or not, and I don't think that that's something that'll ever change entirely, nor should it. An entirely gender neutral world seems bland as fuck. Sure, so-called "girls toys" and "boys toys" is a good example of the kind of thing that really gets my goat, but let's not go overboard.

And as for what you've said of "Queer Theory", you know what I think about that already. I simply don't agree with you. You're wrong, except in the isolated context you've created for yourself, where apparently you can be whatever you want to be, no matter how ridiculous, like a queer unicorn under a red sky, even though you're actually just a straight man under the blue sky with the rest of us. What more is there to be said? You clearly let your imagination and wishful beliefs get the better of you. I'm just not like that. If I want to escape reality, I'll do some hard drugs or something.

And you can't be a feminist if you are a man. — T Clark

You can at least be an ally.

In Gender Nihilism she (ey?) sort of implies that experience of being female is ultimately negative and that gender needs to be abolished altogether. — thewonder

That is subjective. If she expects others to respect her views, then should respect others that may not share her view that being female is ultimately negative.

Gender can only be abolished by abolishing sex.

So, the converse is that someone asks you as a favour to refer to them by their preferred pronoun presuming no obligation. Then, on the basis of that lack of presumption, you accept it as an obligation. In other words the obligatory etiquette arises out of its voluntary negation by its beneficiary.

As in:
A: "I'd really appreciate it if you would refer to me as "they" rather than "he or she". You don't have, to of course, but I do prefer it." (Obligation negated)
B: "Sure, of course." (Obligation presumed)(On the unspoken necessary condition of the original negation of obligation).

This is how etiquette works. Give and take in a space created by charity and good-will. There is nothing to be proud of in a vulgar rejection of this aspect of human relations. — Baden

I'm simply not going to refer to the other person using language I'm not comfortable with. So it would depend entirely on how I felt at the time. They don't have to cause a scene and make it a big issue if I don't do exactly as they want, but my preference is that they get over themselves. It's rude to pressure someone into doing something they're not comfortable doing, and to use etiquette as an excuse.

Boring.

I was countering that you think that Queer Theory is absurd with that what already stands is absurd. The search for a gender neutral pronoun is an emergent phenomenon and so it does seem a bit odd. I don't think that it is absurd to suggest that there ought to be one. I would argue that Queer Theory necessarily is of a radical position in so far that it seeks to totally reconceptualize gender and sexuality, but that the position is not necessarily extreme or outlandish. I do think that if a person asks that you use certain pronouns that it is not unreasonable to expect for the other person to consent to their request.

Boring. — Baden

Bothered.

Not really. I just value folks gettin' along.

I do think that if a person asks that you use certain pronouns that it is not unreasonable to expect for the other person to consent to their request. — thewonder

And I don't think that it's as clear cut as that. There are multiple layers to this, and your take is too one sided. See my replies to Baden above for a different interpretation.

refusing to use a person's chosen pronouns does slightly deny their right to exist as such. — thewonder

That's ridiculous. The only thing it "denies" is you calling them the term in question.

Being transgender is complex, but I don't think that all transgendered people fall prey to the trappings of traditional gender roles. In Gender Nihilism she (ey?) sort of implies that experience of being female is ultimately negative and that gender needs to be abolished altogether. I don't wholly agree, but thought that that was an interesting argument. I think that it sees too much in the way of deterministic interpellation. I could see that transgendered people could end up sort of accidentally parodizing the roles which they have switched to, and that this could be somewhat dissociative. I don't think that that's too common, though. People figure things out however.

Not really. I just value folks gettin' along. — Baden

Yeah, well, you can't get along with everyone. I'm probably not going to get along with someone who oversteps the line by pressuring me to do something I'm not comfortable with doing. You can pretend that it's just a simple matter of etiquette, but the truth is that there's more to it underneath the surface.

That's ridiculous. — Terrapin Station

As is much of what he has been saying: "infinite genders, queer yet functionally straight, the sky is red to me if that's what I believe, if you identify as a unicorn I would respect that..." Surely he's trolling?

(In other words, a normatively phrased demand (You should refer to me as.../ You should not expect me to refer to you as... ) by either party short-circuits the solution from both ends.) — Baden

I have no idea what that really means or why you think it.

1) New pronouns won't take off, so even if I had any political or aesthetic objections to them, it wouldn't matter in the bigger picture.

2) I generally accede to polite requests that cost me nothing. And would regardless of my propensity to be altruistic because of the good will fostered. It's trading a negligible cost for a non-negligible benefit.

So, I don't feel any pressure in the above case. I feel like I'm winning. And even where a demand is made then I'd consider the presenting of the obligation to negate itself by its presentation as such and so again feel no pressure.

I have no idea what that really means or why you think it — S

I may have made the original post a bit concise. And it's based on an idea that could probably do with more explication. But it is essentially all in there.

Thats the problem. Those arbitrary behaviors (wearing skirts, earrings or long hair) are being incorrectly categorized as masuline and feminine, when they should simply be categorized as human behaviors.

Of course there are masculine and feminine behaviors that are not arbitrary as those that relate to one's physiology.

The problem we have is transgenders reinforce those arbitrary categorizations, by claiming to feel like the opposite sex, and then adopting those arbitrary behaviors that are considered masuline or feminine as if those behaviors only belong to that sex. — Harry Hindu

But they're not simply human behaviours. They are predominantly more masculine or more feminine. Of course, there's nothing inherent about length of hair, for example, that makes it masculine or feminine, but it's nonsense to think that there would be nothing feminine about wearing your hair in lengthy pigtails, large hoop earrings, and a pink dress. If you don't believe me, then just give it a try and see how people react. That it exists on a cultural level, rather than physical reality, is not that there's no such thing or that it doesn't exist at all. It is very evident that it does exist, and that there's something to it, which is also why transgendered men and women exist and can be visibly noticed as such.

1) New pronouns won't take off, so even if I had any political or aesthetic objections to them, it wouldn't matter in the bigger picture. — Baden

Okay, fine, I get that, although we're on a philosophy forum after all. How much of what we talk about here really matters in the bigger picture? How much of it is hypothetical? The fact is, we're discussing it regardless, and not for the first time.

2) I generally accede to polite requests that cost me nothing. And would regardless of my propensity to be altruistic because of the good will fostered. It's trading a negligible cost for a non-negligible benefit. — Baden

It wouldn't cost me nothing, so your second point wouldn't apply to me. It would mean caving in on a principle, and I don't do that lightly.

So, I don't feel any pressure in the above case. I feel like I'm winning. And even where a demand is made then I'd consider the presenting of the obligation to negate itself by its presentation as such and so again feel no pressure. — Baden

Well if there's no pressure, then there should be no problem with my lack of conformity, should there? Easygoing people aren't the kind of people that kick up a fuss if you don't do as they want. No pressure to conform, no problem. But I think we both know that there is pressure, whether cloaked in polite language or otherwise.

But they're not simply human behaviours. They are predominantly more masculine or more feminine. Of course, there's nothing inherent about length of hair, for example, that makes it masculine or feminine. — S

Exactly. There's nothing inherently more masculine ir feminine about how someone wears their hair or what jewelry they wear or what kind of clothes they wear. Those are human behaviors that are not inhibited by one's sexual physiology.

but it's nonsense to think that there would be nothing feminine about wearing your hair in lengthy pigtails, large hoop earrings, and a pink dress. If you don't believe me, then just give it a try and see how people react. That it exists on a cultural level, rather than physical reality, is not that there's no such thing or that it doesn't exist at all. — S

But that is what I'm getting at - the incorrect cultural notions that they are governed by ones sexual physiology, thereby labeling them as masuline and feminine. Im not saying that peoples reactions don't exist. Im saying that their reactions are wrong - a category error.

Exactly. There's nothing inherently more masculine ir feminine about how someone wears their hair or what jewelry they wear or what kind of clothes they wear. Those are human behaviors that are not inhibited by one's sexual physiology. — Harry Hindu

But it's not about inherent qualities or sexual physiology. It's not on that basis that we talk about feminine hair, jewellery, and clothes. Of course it doesn't make sense in that respect, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't make sense in other respects.

But that is what I'm getting at - the incorrect cultural notions that they are governed by ones sexual physiology, thereby labeling them as masuline and feminine. Im not saying that peoples reactions don't exist. Im saying that their reactions are wrong - a category error. — Harry Hindu

It's not a category error. You're just thinking about it in a way that leads to that conclusion, but you don't have to think about it that way. You're choosing to do so. It's like if I were to deny that there are no punks or hippies, just people. It's not a category error on a cultural level. On a cultural level, there are indeed punks, hippies, masculine and feminine, and many other identifiable categories of that sort.

But it's not about inherent qualities or sexual physiology. It's not on that basis that we talk about feminine hair, jewellery, and clothes. Of course it doesn't make sense in that respect, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't make sense in other respects. — S

That isnt how "masculine" and "feminine" are defined. They are defined as relating to one's sex.

This was considered to be grammatically correct, but it's totally absurd. — thewonder

It's not absurd. The reason underlying the grammatical correctness of using "he" is because in English, "man" is the default general term for "human, mankind, people". If you know that the person in question is female, then it would be incorrect to use "he" rather than "she".

If you want to be grammatical, forget about making up new pronouns:

These are your choices. Get used to it.

@thewonder @Bitter Crank

Generic 'he' was and is grammatically correct. The issue is one of style and appropriacy.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-person_pronoun#Generic_he

That isnt how "masculine" and "feminine" are defined. They are defined as relating to one's sex. — Harry Hindu

Yes, relating to one's sex, but you're stretching that to absurdity when there's no need. They relate to cultural conceptions of sex in terms of image, behaviour, desires, and so on. Without overthinking it, if you were asked to think of a woman, it's more likely than not that you'll think of something pretty close to the stereotype. That's just how our brains work. It's like how a lot of people would think of the red heart symbol with two curves at the top if they were asked to think of a heart, instead of thinking of any actual heart which looks very different. It's not a category error, just two different ways of thinking.

Yes, relating to one's sex, but you're stretching that to absurdity when there's no need. They relate to cultural conceptions of sex in terms of image, behaviour, desires, and so on. Without overthinking it, if you were asked to think of a woman, it's more likely than not that you'll think of something pretty close to the stereotype. That's just how our brains work. It's like how a lot of people would think of the red heart symbol with two curves at the top if they were asked to think of a heart, instead of thinking of any actual heart which looks very different. It's not a category error, just two different ways of thinking. — S

You keep referring to our cultural inclination to think of the sexes in a certain way which is no different than how one thinks about the existence of gods. Just because we've been culturally conditioned to think a certain way doesn't mean that thinking is correct. What is being stretched is the idea of sex beyond what it is. Sex is not how you wear your clothes or your hair. Sex is physiology.

You keep referring to our cultural inclination to think of the sexes in a certain way which is no different than how one thinks about the existence of gods. Just because we've been culturally conditioned to think a certain way doesn't mean that thinking is correct. What is being stretched is the idea of sex beyond what it is. Sex is not how you wear your clothes or your hair. Sex is physiology. — Harry Hindu

We weren't talking about sex, we were talking about the concepts of masculine and feminine, and it would be utterly wrongheaded to think about that exclusively in terms of the physiology of sex, whilst willfully ignoring what an explanation in terms of culture adds. The two go hand in hand, and don't make sense otherwise. These aren't empty concepts. That would be absurd. There's clearly something to them. Masculine and feminine are concepts relating to the two sexes, male and female, in terms of cultural associations in the form of image, fashion, mannerisms, behaviour, characteristics, personality traits, etc., and there's no rational reason I can think of for you to arbitrarily scrap any reference to culture here.

Look, if you want to think about it like that, then so be it, but you can count me out.