Isn't the more important thing to get rid of slavery and prejudice? "Lets fix a wrong with a wrong" is not a solution in an advanced culture. This is also a gross exaggeration of what transitioned people have to do through in the West. You can show up transitioned at work, everyone knows you're a trans person, and harassment and mistreatment isn't tolerated. So, lets assume that a transitioned person can go to work, has to use their natal sex bathroom, does not get called pronouns by gender, but their natal sex, and people treat them just like anyone else otherwise. You now have zero cause. Meaning your cause was never the right cause, only a poor compensation to handle a bigger cause. — Philosophim

Who cares what bathroom people use? OK -- ideally, we would get rid of prejudice. Even if we did, though, some trans people would prefer others using their new pronouns. Out of kindness and good manners, we should all comply. If someone changes his or her name, do you insist on calling him or her by their birth name (many names are gendered)? Why insist on their birth gender? "Gender" is used to modify nouns in many languages, and it is often arbitrary. At work, and among close acquaintances most people would presumably know that the trans person was trans. It's still good manners to use their preferred pronouns, just as it would be to use their new name (if they have one).

Which is more important socially? Biology, or kindness, respect for identity, and honoring the wishes of others? In a social situation, shouldn't social reality trump biological reality?

In addition, it is incorrect to say the "people treat them (people of different genders) just like anyone else". WE all have been enculturated to treat women different from men. OF course, it may be true that this involves prejudice. The chivalry of "women and children first to the lifeboats" is great for women, except that it compares them to helpless children. It remains the case that gender influence social interactions, possibly due to prejudice, possibly due to differing training and upbringings. Perhaps trans people want to be treated (and act) in accordance with their new gender.

Who cares what bathroom people use? — Ecurb

Generally the people of a particular sex for the bathrooms. There are clearly signs marked men and women right? So obviously a lot of people care. But that's not an argument or the point of the discussion.

OK -- ideally, we would get rid of prejudice. Even if we did, though, some trans people would prefer others using their new pronouns. — Ecurb

No objection at all, they are free to do so.

Out of kindness and good manners, we should all comply. — Ecurb

Why? How have you reasoned this is good? This seems to me that you've been told this is good. Have you questioned it? Feel free to explain it to me.

If someone changes his or her name, do you insist on calling him or her by their birth name (many names are gendered)? — Ecurb

If its a legal name change, no. If its not a legal name change, I'm under no obligation to call them a name they've made up for themselves. Can I call them that? Yes. Do I have to or is it considered good manners? Not at all. That's up to the each individual to decide. Its called consent. When you ask someone to lie or do something that isn't a legal qualifier, that person needs to give consent. You don't get to guilt, shame, or mark a person who does not give consent as immoral. If a woman turned down a man's sexual advances, should the woman be shamed? The man who wanted the advances returned might, but we've learned that's the real shameful behavior.

Back to your earlier point, asking someone to call you the sex that you aren't, is an act of asking consent. Not politeness, obligation, moral certainty, or anything equaling good. Its a social request, and one everyone is free to turn down. That is what is moral, good, and polite. Asking consent, and accepting the answer given no matter if its affirmative or negative.

Why insist on their birth gender? — Ecurb

There is no birth gender. Gender is a prejudice about a person's sex. There is only birth sex. Everyone's prejudices about the sexes is different, and prejudice should never be held as something we should uphold in any capacity.

At work, and among close acquaintances most people would presumably know that the trans person was trans. It's still good manners to use their preferred pronouns — Ecurb

No, because most people use pronouns for sex, not gender. You're asking a person to use pronouns in a prejudicial way instead of a biological way. Politeness is asking for consent and accepting when a person says no. I for one do not like to participate in sexism. I don't think the way a man or woman looks or dresses changes who they are by sex, and I think 'gender' is just prejudice that I don't want to partake in. Wouldn't I be the person with the higher moral standards here? If not, why not?

Which is more important socially? Biology, or kindness, respect for identity, and honoring the wishes of others? In a social situation, shouldn't social reality trump biological reality? — Ecurb

Instead of asking me, I want to hear your viewpoint. What do you think? This isn't a trap or anything, I genuinely want to know where your thought process is so I can better speak with you.

In addition, it is incorrect to say the "people treat them (people of different genders) just like anyone else". WE all have been enculturated to treat women different from men. OF course, it may be true that this involves prejudice. — Ecurb

The important part that we agree on here is that gender is prejudice. To be clear, we need to separate gender from sex expectation which involves biological reality. For example, most women bleed once a month. Should we allow facilities in the bathroom for this particular issue? Yes. But that's not gender, that's objective biological reality. There may be a confusion that conflates gender with sex. They are not the same at all. Gender is "I think women shouldn't wear top hats." That's it. Its a subjective opinion that can be shared among a culture in how a man or woman should act in society that has nothing to do with their objective biological reality.

If we know that men are taller on average than women, and we are making a shelf height in a place that primarily caters to women, making the shelf height to the average of female heights is not gender or prejudice, its simply adjusting to expected sex differences. All of this is fine.

The chivalry of "women and children first to the lifeboats" is great for women, except that it compares them to helpless children. — Ecurb

Yes, and isn't the real issue that we need to get rid of this prejudice? Not avoid the issue with equally poor behavior? If you lie to listen to it, you're tacitly agreeing with it. That doesn't change things or make a better world.

It remains the case that gender influence social interactions, possibly due to prejudice, possibly due to differing training and upbringings. — Ecurb

And do you think that's good or that we should accept that? I don't. Is that a problem?

Perhaps trans people want to be treated (and act) in accordance with their new gender. — Ecurb

I would tell anyone that wants to double down on prejudice or sexism not to. I would also tell a person that they shouldn't live their life by how they want people to look at them, as that's also a fool's errand. People are going to have their own judgements about you no matter what you do. Its best to just live your life for you, and live despite other people's expectations of you.

If its a legal name change, no. If its not a legal name change, I'm under no obligation to call them a name they've made up for themselves. Can I call them that? Yes. Do I have to or is it considered good manners? Not at all. That's up to the each individual to decide. Its called consent. — Philosophim

Not true. Of course it's a mere vernal sin to call people by one name when they've asked to be called by another. Nonetheless, kind, well-mannered people won't do it. You don't "have to" -- but it's rude not to.

The same is true for titles. If someone asks to be called Ms. Jones instead of Mrs. Jones, it's rude not to comply. Why should pronouns be so different? Is it so important to recognize a genetic or biological truth in a pronoun? Doesn't finding that important indicate prejudice? And if it isn't important, why not act in the interest of kindness and comply with the person's wishes?

Your seeming obsession with the topic is bizarre. Let's just try to get along, and when people ask us the favor of referring to them by a particular name or pronoun (which may be different from their birth assignment) why get all hoity-toity about it? Wouldn't it be kinder and easier just to do them that small favor?

Not true. Of course it's a mere vernal sin to call people by one name when they've asked to be called by another. Nonetheless, kind, well-mannered people won't do it. You don't "have to" -- but it's rude not to. — Ecurb

No, you need to clarify why its rude, not merely declare it. It is not rude to not give consent to lying, duplicity, or pretend games because it makes another person feel good. This is the same line selfish men and women use when they hit on someone and there's rejection. Yes, rejection can make another person feel bad, but when that rejection is about consent, the person who is rejected needs to behave like a proper adult, not take it personally, and respect that the other person had no obligation to agree to the request.

The same is true for titles. If someone asks to be called Ms. Jones instead of Mrs. Jones, it's rude not to comply. Why should pronouns be so different? — Ecurb

Fair question. Titles are indicators of both sex and marriage status. Ms. is marriage status neutral, while Mrs. is not. If someone is not married and tells me to call them Mrs. anyway because they hate feeling like they aren't married, they're asking me to lie for their emotional benefit. That's a consent request. I am not obligated to, it is not polite to, or moral to say yes. That is my personal choice.

Pronouns for most people represent sex indicators, not gender. Meaning if I see that you're a female acting like a male, I'm still accurate and truthful in labeling you 'her'. That's not rude. That's not impolite. If someone is personally bothered by a normal interaction, that is for them to deal with, not anyone else. If they ask me to lie to them, or use pronouns in a way I wouldn't normally, that's fine. But its a consent request again, not an obligation, a moral certitude, or even polite. I have full choice to accept or reject without any wrongdoing on my part either way.

Is it so important to recognize a genetic or biological truth in a pronoun? Doesn't finding that important indicate prejudice? And if it isn't important, why not act in the interest of kindness and comply with the person's wishes? — Ecurb

All good questions again.

1. Many of us like to use language to convey what we believe and see about the world. It is important for many of us not to lie where possible. Some people don't mind. Others do. That's why its a consent request.

2. A prejudice is a 'pre-judgement' about some thing. So if I looked at a woman and thought, "Women should wear dresses all the time," that's a prejudice. My noting that a woman is a woman, and me being right about that (woman meaning 'adult human female') is the exact denial of prejudice. There is no pre-judgement anymore, there is simply the fact of the matter.

3. Because you have not demonstrated why it is kind to lie. Or why it is kind to request that another person lie for your personal benefit. I do not find it kind it most situations. If someone is walking around saying they're a man when they're clearly not, its not kind to lie to them for their feelings. I respect people's intellect and maturity. If I think you can't handle being told basic facts or truths, its because I think you're an inferior person to me. Should I treat trans gender people like they're inferior to me, mentally incapable of handling the fact that I see their natal sex? Or should I treat them like they're an adult and can handle it? I think the later is kindness and respect, the former is pity and patronizing.

Your seeming obsession with the topic is bizarre. — Ecurb

Why is it an obsession? I've written many different philosophical discussions, and only two on trans gender issues over two months. I would hardly call that an obsession. Obviously its a current event topic that lots of people feel the need to talk about. Isn't talking about things good? We're both communicating our side and treating each other like adults who can handle each other's differences.

Let's just try to get along, and when people ask us the favor of referring to them by a particular name or pronoun (which may be different from their birth assignment) why get all hoity-toity about it? — Ecurb

Because I am allowed the respect of my consent. And you don't get to disparage me for deciding what I do, and do not consent to in my life. Trans gender people do not have anything special about them over myself. Just as I would not expect that its moral to violate their consent either.

Wouldn't it be kinder and easier just to do them that small favor? — Ecurb

No as I've mentioned above. Philosophically, instead of asserting that this is moral, make a case that it is. Why are their feelings more important than my consent? Why is it kind to tell them something we both know isn't true?

Pronouns for most people represent sex indicators, not gender. — Philosophim

What planet do you live on? These days, for most people pronouns represent gender indicators.

Because I am allowed the respect of my consent. And you don't get to disparage me for deciding what I do, and do not consent to in my life — Philosophim

We have freedom of speech. That includes your right to misgender people, and my right to disparage you for it. I'm not threatening to throw you in prison, or fine you.

With regard to lies: I'm a fan of Mark Twain, who said, "Show me a man who don't lie and I'll show you a man who ain't got much to say." Generous, good-natured lies harm no one, facilitate happiness and lubricate social interaction. Lies in and of themselves are not wicked; they are wicked only if harmful or malicious.

Your "consent" is trivial. Charity and a lack of egoism suggests their feeling are more important.

Pronouns for most people represent sex indicators, not gender.
— Philosophim

What planet do you live on? These days, for most people pronouns represent gender indicators. — Ecurb

Incorrect. Most people do not even understand gender as used in gender theory. And you did not invalidate my point that there are people who do use pronouns to refer to sex. The "What planet do you live on?" is an indicator of your frustration in realizing you can't counter that point. I have not been disrespectful towards you. Initial disrespect is always an indicator that you are losing the discussion.

We have freedom of speech. That includes your right to misgender people, and my right to disparage you for it. I'm not threatening to throw you in prison, or fine you. — Ecurb

And where did I say I would be thrown into prison or fined? That's irrelevant. If you want to disparage my consent, that's fine. But then I hold the moral high ground, and you don't. There's one common thing among all criminals: The disparagement of consent.

With regard to lies: I'm a fan of Mark Twain, who said, "Show me a man who don't lie and I'll show you a man who ain't got much to say." — Ecurb

So you are agreeing with me that its a lie, and that people are being asked to lie for someone else's feelings.

Generous, good-natured lies harm no one, facilitate happiness and lubricate social interaction. Lies in and of themselves are not wicked; they are wicked only if harmful or malicious. — Ecurb

And yet you disregarded my entire point above that these are not good natured or harmless lies. You are claiming they are good natured, you have not given any points indicating they actually are. I find your request quite evil at this point. This is coming from an atheist as well.

Your "consent" is trivial. — Ecurb

If your 'good natured lies' make my consent trivial, then you share the same mentality as a thief. Your argument essentially says my consent is irrelevant, and I should just lie for social cohesion. You have not yet given a good reason why my consent is irrelevant, or why the request for another person to lie isn't itself a violation of social cohesion. I would say a much better social situation is to be among people who can be honest with each other and trust each other to speak honestly.

I'm not seeing a very good moral justification from you, and your disregard of consent puts you at being morally suspect at this point. Please take your next post seriously and put some effort in giving some substantive reasoning and even a little willingness to consider the importance of consent. If you don't do that, I don't think there's a single person who could reasonably confirm that what you're saying is good.

Incorrect. Most people do not even understand gender as used in gender theory. And you did not invalidate my point that there are people who do use pronouns to refer to sex. The "What planet do you live on?" is an indicator of your frustration in realizing you can't counter that point. I have not been disrespectful towards you. Initial disrespect is always an indicator that you are losing the discussion. — Philosophim

Oh, bunk. "What planet do you live on" was shorthand for saying language evolves and most educated people are now aware that pronouns refer to gender, these days.

So you are agreeing with me that its a lie, and that people are being asked to lie for someone else's feelings. — Philosophim

No. As should be obvious from my posts.

I am saying, "Even if, as is not the case, you are correct that using new pronouns for someone's gender is a lie, it is still not wicked."

If your 'good natured lies' make my consent trivial, then you share the same mentality as a thief. — Philosophim

Oh, no! Horrors! Well, I perhaps lack some respect for property rights. You misrepresent my position
(despite my clear posts). Your consent is irrelevant because it would be a trivial favor on your part to use the gender pronouns people desire. Trans people (about whom I know very little) are probably obsessive about their gender (why else would they bother becoming trans). So I assume it's more important to them than it would be to you (if you have normal sensibilities).

Oh, bunk. "What planet do you live on" was shorthand for saying language evolves and most educated people are now aware that pronouns refer to gender, these days. — Ecurb

Ok, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. I've come across the wrong way before as writing lacks non-verbal. To your point, its unknown how many educated people use pronouns to refer to sex. I'm educated for example, and I've always used pronouns to reference sex, not gender.

So you are agreeing with me that its a lie, and that people are being asked to lie for someone else's feelings.
— Philosophim

No. As should be obvious from my posts. — Ecurb

With regard to lies: I'm a fan of Mark Twain, who said, "Show me a man who don't lie and I'll show you a man who ain't got much to say." Generous, good-natured lies harm no one, facilitate happiness and lubricate social interaction. Lies in and of themselves are not wicked; they are wicked only if harmful or malicious. — Ecurb

Then why did you mention the above if there are no lies involved?

If your 'good natured lies' make my consent trivial, then you share the same mentality as a thief.
— Philosophim

Oh, no! Horrors! — Ecurb

Yes. Every single criminal act, every single violation of another human being involves violating their consent. Its not something to be taken lightly. Notice how I'm not mocking a trans person's request for pronouns. I'm listening, I'm considering it, and stating its up to every individual to concede whether they wish to do something against their nature for the other person. I just ask the same consideration and respect back.

Your consent is irrelevant because it would be a trivial favor on your part to use the gender pronouns people desire. — Ecurb

"Its ok to steal five dollars because he has a lot of money and won't miss it." "Its ok if I copped a feel quickly, she'll get over it." These are the excuses of people who do wrong to others. They discount other's personal boundaries, their viewpoints for personal benefit at another's expense. That's what being a terrible person is.

I do not mind if a trans person asks me to partake in the implication that transition has made them the other sex. I clearly do not see any moral justification for me to partake in this besides its what they want. And my decision not to should be just as respected as their decision to be on hormones and dress in a manner associated with the opposite sex.

You yourself have discounted and not listened to my clear points in the last posts as to why its important to me that I refuse to go along with their view of themselves. If I went and told a trans gender person, "I don't care if you feel like a woman, just suck it up for social cohesion," you would have an issue wouldn't you? Then why do you not have an issue telling me to suck it up for social cohesion? Morality seeks equal rational treatment between parties. You have not proposed that.

Do you see your moral certitude lacks consistency? Instead of an ask for a group, this seems more like a power play. That's not anything good or moral. My viewpoint is morally consistent. I simply ask that my consent or lack thereof to not lie to someone else be respected and understood as my moral right. From my view point still, I hold the moral view point while you seem to want to violate consent for the emotions of a particular group of people.

Trans people (about whom I know very little) are probably obsessive about their gender (why else would they bother becoming trans).. So I assume it's more important to them than it would be to you (if you have normal sensibilities). — Ecurb

What an inane assumption. I just told you why its important to me. And consent is not about whether someone thinks its more important. If a man raped a woman because he thought his desire was more important than her desire not to sleep with him, that makes it right? And you don't even know any trans people. I do. And I know a few who agree with everything I've posted here. Trans gender people are not a monolithic hive mind.

So instead, of making naive moral assumptions and assertions, take a step back and go step by step. Why is consent not important? Why is a trans person's request more important than the consent of someone who does not want to give it? How is this something moral, and not just the complaining of a child like mind that wants control over others?

Gender is an identity based on prejudices. A 'man' by gender has nothing to do with their actual body or sex, but how a person thinks a person of that body and sex should act in public. A scalpel is given to remove that sociological expectation from that sex, and place it onto another. Thus I could be an adult human female but have the gender of a man, or "Act in ways in society in ways that I think only adult human men should act.' And of course, if you elevate gender over your sex, you've fallen into sexism. — Philosophim

Indeed gender is necessarily detached from sex, but appearance as the opposite sex is requisite for trans affirmation. Indeed, that is the objective of medical 'gender affirming care'. As such, although we fabricate genders without reference to sex these days, one needs to reference the natural world for validation. We ignore the reality of sex for 'affirmation' but require it for validation. Of course 'gender affirmation' is different to 'gender validation'. I could say "I am a woman" as if that's an entirely arbitrary category, but as pretty as I am, I am, in fact, male.

In short, we must detach from reality to construct gender ideology, but if a real-living-body doesn't occupy the discursively constructed 'Social Body', the Social Body cannot engage in power dynamics. Hence, we return to sex 'appearances' to convince everyone of what I claim to be.

I'm educated for example, and I've always used pronouns to reference sex, not gender. — Philosophim

"And, doggone it, I'm not about to change with the times." Any of us who have seen emails where people list their pronouns and identification forms where people list their pronouns must be aware that the pronouns are meant to relate to gender, not sex. Therefore, it is not a "lie" to use someone's preferred pronouns. Of course you are free to do so, but your excuse that complying would be a "lie" is mere silliness. Therefore, there is no moral excuse for your rudeness -- your excuse is simply that you don't want to change the way you speak as the language changes. That's not a matter of morality -- it's a matter of stubbornness.

Yes. Every single criminal act, every single violation of another human being involves violating their consent. Its not something to be taken lightly — Philosophim

First of all, that's not true (or only trivially true), and secondly, many legal acts violate people's consent. The murderer who is hauled off to prison doesn't consent to being incarcerated. Whose "consent" is violated when I run a stop sign on my bicycle when there's no traffic? So violating someone's "consent" occurs constantly. Sometimes it's legal, sometimes it isn't. I guess, then, it IS something to be taken lightly, unless there are mitigating factors.

"Its ok to steal five dollars because he has a lot of money and won't miss it. — Philosophim

Well, Robin Hood is a revered hero. I suppose you side with Guy of Gisborne, though. "Stealing" is a legal matter, since all property rights are legally determined. Sometimes it is morally justified, sometimes it isn't. Robin Hood thought the rich Normans were over-taxing the poor Saxons, and that their property rights were therefore unjust, and by "stealing" from them he was enhancing justice (despite the lack of "consent" from his victims). All property rights "violate consent". Does the homeless person "consent" to sleep on the street instead of in your house? Or is he violently constrained from doing so by the police (and gun-toting home-owners)?

I simply ask that my consent or lack thereof to not lie to someone else be respected and understood as my moral right. From my view point still, I hold the moral view point while you seem to want to violate consent for the emotions of a particular group of people. — Philosophim

As I've clearly pointed out, using preferred pronouns does not constitute a "lie". You have a "moral right" to misuse the language, to behave rudely, and to ignore the preferences of others. Who said you didn't? And I have the moral (and correct, and logical) right to say such behavior is rude. I suppose morals are manners writ large -- so rudeness is a trivial form of immorality (assuming it is morally correct to "do unto others"). Would you object if people misgendered you? If you would, why would you want to misgender
others (now that it's clear that this involves no "lying")?

"And, doggone it, I'm not about to change with the times." Any of us who have seen emails where people list their pronouns and identification forms where people list their pronouns must be aware that the pronouns are meant to relate to gender, not sex. — Ecurb

And as I've noted in this thread, I consider gender prejudice. So no, I'm not going to start using prejudicial language. You have not indicated why the OP is wrong on this. This is not a 'times' issue. This is a linguistic and ethical issue.

Therefore, it is not a "lie" to use someone's preferred pronouns. Of course you are free to do so, but your excuse that complying would be a "lie" is mere silliness. Therefore, there is no moral excuse for your rudeness -- your excuse is simply that you don't want to change the way you speak as the language changes. That's not a matter of morality -- it's a matter of stubbornness. — Ecurb

Is it more moral to use language without prejudice and sexism, or more moral not to? Its more moral not to. Since I use pronouns to refer to sex, its not a matter of stubbornness but ethics and integrity. Since I use pronouns to refer to sex, by fact, it would be a lie to call them a sex they are not.

Yes. Every single criminal act, every single violation of another human being involves violating their consent. Its not something to be taken lightly
— Philosophim

First of all, that's not true (or only trivially true) — Ecurb

How is it not true? You don't just get to hand wave that away. Again, your dismissal of consent is highly questionable.

many legal acts violate people's consent. The murderer who is hauled off to prison doesn't consent to being incarcerated. — Ecurb

In society and government, to live within that government you consent to following its laws. If you don't like it, leave or change the laws. A government like a democracy allows more voices involved in what laws society crafts. So no, it is not a violation of consent if you choose to live within a civilization.

"Its ok to steal five dollars because he has a lot of money and won't miss it.
— Philosophim

Well, Robin Hood is a revered hero. — Ecurb

You're excusing petty theft by referring to a fictional character? Present an actual moral argument please.

Sometimes it is morally justified, sometimes it isn't. — Ecurb

Thank you, this is more honest. Of course I am not comparing petty crime to revolution, which is the overthrow of a government that has gone beyond the normal rights and uses laws to violate its citizens instead of protecting them and keeping order. What I'm not seeing is any justification for violating a person's interpersonal consent, which is what the topic is about.

As I've clearly pointed out, using preferred pronouns does not constitute a "lie". — Ecurb

You have not pointed out that if I'm using pronouns to reference sex, that it would not be a lie. You have tried to insist that everyone should use pronouns to refer to gender. But you have not given a moral reason why. I have indicated gender is simply prejudice, and I think its immoral to support it in any official capacity. Meaning I have a moral right to not use pronouns to refer to gender. So far, I have the moral right to call you unethical for pushing prejudicial language. You should work on that next.

You have a "moral right" to misuse the language, to behave rudely, and to ignore the preferences of others. — Ecurb

You are misusing language by attempting to turn a sex descriptor into a tool of prejudice. To me, that is rude. You ignore my preference to use pronouns as mere descriptors of a person's sex, and without providing any serious moral reason why I should not.

And I have the moral (and correct, and logical) right to say such behavior is rude. — Ecurb

I have seen only assertions, no logical argument why you can say your behavior isn't prejudicial. History is full of people who assert moral certainty without rationality as a means of control. That's you. You are logically in the wrong so far here. That may change if you present a better argument, but as of now, you have nothing but statements and beliefs, not accurate facts or logic.

Would you object if people misgendered you? If you would, why would you want to misgender
others (now that it's clear that this involves no "lying")? — Ecurb

No, I don't object to misgendering because I don't believe in using 'correct' gendering either. Gender is a prejudicial way to talk to one another. You see, in some actions I could easily be observed as having the gender of the opposite sex. In their eyes, because gender is simply a subjective prejudice, they would see me as the gender of the opposite sex, and would not be misgendering. And yet if I decided to think gender was important, I can very likely have a different idea of how my sex should act, and thus it would be a difference of opinion and not fact.

I see my behaviors as irrelevant to my sex. Subjective communication asserted as objective reality does not lead to clear communication. That is why I use sex references and not gender to other people. Act and live as you want. It doesn't change the sex that you are. And in no way does anyone have a moral right to assert someone is rude if they aren't using prejudicial language.

You're really losing this one Ecurb. Try less mocking attacks. Try addressing my points more clearly. And give a serious look at consent. You're coming across as a kid, not a serious debater. That can change, but you need to shape up a bit.

No, I don't object to misgendering because I don't believe in using 'correct' gendering either. Gender is a prejudicial way to talk to one another. You see, in some actions I could easily be observed as having the gender of the opposite sex. In their eyes, because gender is simply a subjective prejudice, they would see me as the gender of the opposite sex, and would not be misgendering. And yet if I decided to think gender was important, I can very likely have a different idea of how my sex should act, and thus it would be a difference of opinion and not fact.

I see my behaviors as irrelevant to my sex. Subjective communication asserted as objective reality does not lead to clear communication. That is why I use sex references and not gender to other people. Act and live as you want. It doesn't change the sex that you are. And in no way does anyone have a moral right to assert someone is rude if they aren't using prejudicial language.

You're really losing this one Ecurb. Try less mocking attacks. Try addressing my points more clearly. And give a serious look at consent. You're coming across as a kid, not a serious debater. That can change, but you need to shape up a bit. — Philosophim

Lots of words involve "prejudice" (as you define it). "Kindness" suggests a prejudice for certain varieties of action. "Morals" suggest a prejudice in favor of ethical rules. ""Prejudice" is a form of "judgement" -- sometimes an inaccurate one based on incomplete data, sometimes an accurate one based on incomplete data.

Gender-based norms have been prevalent in every human society. However, they differ from culture to culture. This suggests they are not based on sex, but on "gender", which is culturally constituted.

Using titles is also prejudiced. We think (with insufficient evidence) that someone calling herself "doctor" is well-educated about treating disease. Should we refrain from using "doctor".

Debating with you is like shooting an unarmed man. Victory is easy, but there's not much glory in it.

Lots of words involve "prejudice" (as you define it). "Kindness" suggests a prejudice for certain varieties of action. "Morals" suggest a prejudice in favor of ethical rules. ""Prejudice" is a form of "judgement" -- sometimes an inaccurate one based on incomplete data, sometimes an accurate one based on incomplete data. — Ecurb

If you read the OP, prejudice is literally a 'pre-judgement'. Determining kindness and morals are not pre-judgements, they are judgements.

Gender-based norms have been prevalent in every human society. However, they differ from culture to culture. This suggests they are not based on sex, but on "gender", which is culturally constituted. — Ecurb

Prejudice and sexism have been prevalent in every human society. However, they differ from culture to culture. This suggests that prejudice and sexism are very easy to fall into if we aren't diligent about it.

Using titles is also prejudiced. We think (with insufficient evidence) that someone calling herself "doctor" is well-educated about treating disease. Should we refrain from using "doctor". — Ecurb

That again is not a pre-judgement. Its an earned title based on education and life accomplishments to indicate a person who has gone above and beyond to master skills beyond most people's capabilities and efforts.

Debating with you is like shooting an unarmed man. Victory is easy, but there's not much glory in it. — Ecurb

You can only talk like that if you leave the debate on strong footing Ecurb. I hope you learned another viewpoint. That the trans gender language and approach is not kind, it is demanding of another person's consent. And no one is obligated to speak to another in a prejudiced manner.

Political language, reified by repetition in public forums and media, competes with the scientific fact of nature leading neither to conclusion or workable truths.

All judgements are "pre-judgements", because we fallible humans are never privy to all the relevant information. Therefore, complaining that using preferred gender pronouns is a form of "prejudice" is insufficient to demonstrate that it is reasonable and polite not to comply.

No one is "obligated" to use preferred pronouns, new names, old names, or to say anything at all (unless subpoenaed). Perhaps, however, some of us consider the good manners associated with complying with an addressee's wishes as to what name or pronoun he or she prefers a form of politeness and good manners.

AS I've pointed out, your "consent" baloney is mere nonsense. We needn't "consent" to practicing good manners; we can chew with our mouths open, refuse to say "please" or "thank you", and try to cut to the front of the queue. Or we can misgender people. Nobody is forcing us to do otherwise (except in the case of the queue, where "cutting" might be dangerous, depending on the size of those already in line.)

Basic good manners suggest we should call people by the name they request us to use (even if it is not their birth name). The "prejudice" and "consent" arguments for treating pronouns differently are unpersuasive. They seem more like insufficient justifications than reasons.

AS I've pointed out, your "consent" baloney is mere nonsense. — Ecurb

Let me be clear. In no uncertain terms is anyone's consent 'baloney'. Violating another person's consent is the definition of being a scummy person. It is the one commonality to every single immoral and evil act in this world. Your attempt to invalidate a person's consent is coersive and manipulative. its evil. It is one of the highest immoral positions a person can hold.

No one is "obligated" to use preferred pronouns, new names, old names, or to say anything at all (unless subpoenaed). Perhaps, however, some of us consider the good manners associated with complying with an addressee's wishes as to what name or pronoun he or she prefers a form of politeness and good manners. — Ecurb

Right, obligation means, "It is not up to the person to consent or not." If you personally consider it good manners, that is your opinion and choice. Not once have I shamed you or said your choice was incorrect for you. Do you see the difference? What you have not claimed is rationally why it is good manners for everyone else besides yourself. Why is it objectively good manners? You have not addressed the fact that to many others, you are asking them to lie. You cannot merely dismiss that with a hand wave. You don't get to tell others that preserving non-sexist language is immoral, when the opposite is more rationally considered immoral.

All judgements are "pre-judgements", because we fallible humans are never privy to all the relevant information. Therefore, complaining that using preferred gender pronouns is a form of "prejudice" is insufficient to demonstrate that it is reasonable and polite not to comply. — Ecurb

Pre-judgements are of course normal things everyone has. If a person thought, "That black person looks dangerous", its not in itself racist. If the person speaks to the black person and finds they are charming, kind, and great, but still insists, "They are dangerous because they are black," that's racist.

If a person wants to have a pre-judgement that "Only women wear dresses," that's fine. If a man puts on a dress then tells people, "I'm a woman because I wear a dress," that's sexist. Gender can only be prejudiced and sexist if acted upon. As such, asking someone to use pronouns to refer to gender is asking them to use sexist language. Its the entire focus of the OP, and I have not seen you present a single argument against its logic. Appeals to unproven politeness and dismissal of consent are not rational arguments, they are appeals to ignore rational arguments and just bend to a person's whims because you want them to.

I've already lived years of my life following a book that told me what was good because it said so. Give me good reasons, not simply assertions.

Let me be clear. In no uncertain terms is anyone's consent 'baloney'. Violating another person's consent is the definition of being a scummy person. It is the one commonality to every single immoral and evil act in this world. Your attempt to invalidate a person's consent is coersive and manipulative. its evil. It is one of the highest immoral positions a person can hold. — Philosophim

Do you even read my posts? Your position is not viable. Here are some (of many) examples in which violating another person's consent is perfectly acceptable:

1) "I don't want to go to school today, daddy," said Billy.

"You have to go to school," said his father. "It's a law and a family rule."

2) "You were going 55mph in a 30 mph zone," said the police officer.

"I wanted to go that fast," said Philosophim.

"Tough," said the officer. "You will pay your fine, and if you don't consent you will be dragged off to prison."

3) "I want to sleep in your house," said the homeless person. "I don't consent to leave."

"Leave right now or I will call the police and they will handcuff you and take you to prison whether you consent or not," said the home owner.

I already explained this to you. Maybe now you will understand.

Why is it objectively good manners? — Philosophim

Good manners are determined by social contracts. They are designed to facilitate social interaction and to make others feel more comfortable. ON that basis, it is good manners to call people by the names they prefer, even if those are not their birth names. Similarly, it is good manners to use their preferred pronouns. Occasionally, it is reasonable to violate the code of manners. If someone calls you an asshole, it's impolite, but reasonable, to call him an asshole back. If someone has covid, it's reasonable to refuse to shake his hand. Dead-naming and misgendering people is not justified by any offence anyone has offered you.

According to you, every parent is "coercive and evil". I'm a parent. Although I rarely coerced my son to do anything he didn't want to do, I sympathize with parents who punish their children (without their consent) for crossing dangerous streets without permission. Good grief! This is all so obvious!

Do you even read my posts? Your position is not viable. Here are some (of many) examples in which violating another person's consent is perfectly acceptable:

1) "I don't want to go to school today, daddy," said Billy.

"You have to go to school," said his father. "It's a law and a family rule." — Ecurb

This is a parents responsibility to manage a child who is not mentally capable to not make effective decisions about their future. We are talking about consenting adults.

2) "You were going 55mph in a 30 mph zone," said the police officer.

"I wanted to go that fast," said Philosophim.

"Tough," said the officer. "You will pay your fine, and if you don't consent you will be dragged off to prison." — Ecurb

Already covered this earlier, but I'll state it again. If you choose to live in a state, you consent to its laws. That's the basic social contract of government.

3) "I want to sleep in your house," said the homeless person. "I don't consent to leave."

"Leave right now or I will call the police and they will handcuff you and take you to prison whether you consent or not," said the home owner. — Ecurb

Again, not only consent to laws, but the homeless person is violating the consent of the home owner. When I own something and you want it, morally you have to ask me and I have to consent to give it to you.

Why is it objectively good manners?
— Philosophim

Good manners are determined by social contracts. They are designed to facilitate social interaction and to make others feel more comfortable. ON that basis, it is good manners to call people by the names they prefer, even if those are not their birth names. Similarly, it is good manners to use their preferred pronouns. — Ecurb

Good manners are not always about making others feel comfortable, but enforcing culture and power structures. I have noted it is correct to state a person's legal name if they've changed it. But pronouns? You have not given an objective reason indicating why they are beneficial to social interaction. Let me give you an example.

In the bible it states that if a man lay with another man, that is abomination. It is so, because the book says it is so. Its good for society, God, and all that. I however don't listen to what a book tells me without good reason. And I saw no good reason to view it as abomination. Back when many were in arms against gay marriage, I was for it. Because I reasoned that objectively, it hurt no one else, wasn't really anyone else's business, and two consenting adults can and should have legal recognition for long term monogamous relationships. I was persuaded by arguments, not assertions.

I'll try one more time, but unless something new is stated, we are going to have to agree to disagree and I will have held up the OP.

Gender is a prejudiced idea that a particular sex should act in a particular social way. I note that when you elevate prejudice past the person, it is sexism. If I told a little boy, "If you play with dolls, you're a girl," I would be sexist. When someone asks me, "Don't call me by the sex I am, call me by a sexist view of how people of the other sex should act," I see no reason why I should consent to using language in that way. I see the person's sex, I'm using pronouns for sex as I always have, why should I change to use sexist language?

You see, the real rudeness is asking another person to be sexist and/or use prejudicial language. "Yes, I see that you see my sex, but I'm a sexist individual who thinks that acting in a way I associate with the other sex, makes me the other sex. Would you be sexist with me?" I find that very rude. I don't care if a person transitions. But, I don't think it makes you the other sex because I'm not a sexist. You are. You have given me no reason to indicate you are not. It is not polite to be sexist, and I do not have to consent to be sexist because it makes you feel better about your sexism.

It would be the same if a black person asked me to call them the "n" word. I taught in inner city classes for a few years with minorities. That word was always forbidden from my class because I told kids we will not refer to racist language. Some kids hated me for it. "You're not cool. That's our culture." No, that's racist, and while in my class I will teach you to identify each other as human beings, not slurs and slangs involving race.

You have done nothing to indicate that you are not a sexist person asking me to participate in sexist language. Do you understand? You need to indicate why gender is not prejudice, and acting on it is not sexism. Or you need to persuade me that talking in prejudicial and sexist language is overall good for society. Kind of a "Old people curse, so you should too so they feel comfortable." I've had people try to make me curse or say things that I don't agree with many times in my life, and I've always stood my ground because I've felt its the right thing to do. Do you understand? You are not moral. I am. You are a selfish person who thinks some other stranger not even in this conversation's desire to use sexist language is more important than my rational explanations that I do not desire to use sexist language, and I have the right to not to consent to that. I rationally conclude my morality, you merely assert it with jeers and dismissals of my arguments.

So, it step up. Look at my points, and explain why the rationale is wrong. Not with jeers or appeals to social 'glue' as that's nonsense. You want my consent, you need to respect it, and respect my rational viewpoints by addressing them. If you don't, then just like the kids in my classroom, I will dismiss you as not having the intellectual capacity to know what you're doing, and will not take your words as having any validity behind them.

Again, not only consent to laws, but the homeless person is violating the consent of the home owner. When I own something and you want it, morally you have to ask me and I have to consent to give it to you. — Philosophim

Huh? Why is the law always right? If (as I pointed out earlier) Robin Hood thinks the law is unjust. The tax collectors are violating the consent of the Saxons by collecting taxes, and Robin Hood is violating the consent of the Normans by taking the largesse back. Do the protesters in Iran "consent" to be abused by the government by dint of being born there? The notion that we all consent to obey the law is silly.

Consent is a factor in morality -- but not the most important factor. Suppose some pervert consents to have you torture and kill him? Is it perfectly OK for you to do it? As I have repeated: nobody is forcing you (or anyone else) to use someone's desired pronouns. Nobody is forcing you to say "please" or "thank you". But it's good natured and mannerly to say "please", "thank you" and the preferred "him" or "her". You needn't do so, and I needn't think you are a kind, well-mannered person when you refrain.

Gender is an idea (not more prejudiced than other ideas) about how people behave and how they are perceived. If someone wants to be perceived as a "he' or a "she", it's well-mannered to comply, just as it's well mannered not to dead-name people. it is not sexist. Sexism suggests that one gender (sex) and the behaviors associated with it are superior to another's. We all know that women like cats, and men lie dogs (sometimes). A generalization like that is not sexist, unless (as would be utterly reasonable) we say, "Only a moron would like cats better than dogs. That is denying the importance of relationships, which are far closer, more intense, and more reciprocal with a dog than with a cat." Although true, that would be sexist, if we used it to suggest that our girlfriends or wives are not interested in close relationships. Also, it might lead them to dump us.

If a trans woman likes dogs better than cats we might think, "Hmmm". But we should still use the preferred pronouns.

So it is not rude to ask a person to use preferred pronouns. If they don't consent to do so, it would not be rude to think they are crude jerks. Nor would it be rude to cut their acquaintance. Your idea that using preferred gender terms is "prejudiced" and "sexist" just doesn't hold water. So if you want to justify your rudeness, you should find some other reason.

Again, not only consent to laws, but the homeless person is violating the consent of the home owner. When I own something and you want it, morally you have to ask me and I have to consent to give it to you.
— Philosophim

Huh? Why is the law always right? If (as I pointed out earlier) Robin Hood thinks the law is unjust. The tax collectors are violating the consent of the Saxons by collecting taxes, and Robin Hood is violating the consent of the Normans by taking the largesse back. Do the protesters in Iran "consent" to be abused by the government by dint of being born there? The notion that we all consent to obey the law is silly. — Ecurb

You consent to obey the law, or petition for the law to be changed. But until the law is changed, you consent in the social contract between an individual and government.

As I have repeated: nobody is forcing you (or anyone else) to use someone's desired pronouns. Nobody is forcing you to say "please" or "thank you". But it's good natured and mannerly to say "please", "thank you" and the preferred "him" or "her". You needn't do so, and I needn't think you are a kind, well-mannered person when you refrain. — Ecurb

Yet you are trying to convince me that its immoral not to in some manner. My point is that you have no grounds to assert this. You have provided nothing but an opinion that I should use sexist language with others.

Gender is an idea (not more prejudiced than other ideas) about how people behave and how they are perceived. If someone wants to be perceived as a "he' or a "she", it's well-mannered to comply, just as it's well mannered not to dead-name people. — Ecurb

No, it is not well mannered to follow how someone wishes to be perceived. Sometimes its actually rude to ask that a person be perceived a particular way. If a wage worker tells their boss that they should be treated as the most valuable employee despite being a lazy person who shows up late to work all the time and doesn't do their job properly, the employee is out of line and being the rude one.

Someone who asks another to participate in sexist or racist language is rude, period. I don't participate in slurs against races despite being pressured to in the past, and I'm not going to participate in sexist language despite now. Societies and cultures come and go with ideas of what is right and wrong. Sometimes society gets it right, sometimes it doesn't. This? Society is getting it wrong.

it is not sexist. Sexism suggests that one gender (sex) and the behaviors associated with it are superior to another's. We all know that women like cats, and men lie dogs (sometimes). A generalization like that is not sexist, unless (as would be utterly reasonable) we say, "Only a moron would like cats better than dogs. — Ecurb

You only have a partial understanding of sexism. Sexism is also elevating the prejudices you have about their sex, over the actual person themself. The fact you said "Women like cats" is prejudiced at best, sexist at worse. Where did you get such a crazy idea? I've known lots of women that hate cats. That's why its sexist. It asserts things about a broad sex that are not true for every member of that sex. It takes individual personality differences and tries to say "Its because you're a woman."

Now, this is not to be confused with sex expectations. For example, its expected that women will bleed once a month. That's not a social expectations, that's a biological norm. Of course, if someone stated, "You don't have a period, therefore you can't be a woman," if the person is female this is of course sexist too. Prejudice and sex expectations in themselves are not wrong, they are only wrong if they assert their truth when it does not align with reality.

A generalization like that is not sexist, unless (as would be utterly reasonable) we say, "Only a moron would like cats better than dogs. That is denying the importance of relationships, which are far closer, more intense, and more reciprocal with a dog than with a cat." Although true, that would be sexist, if we used it to suggest that our girlfriends or wives are not interested in close relationships. Also, it might lead them to dump us. — Ecurb

I don't understand why you think its utterly reasonable to claim "Only a moron would like cats better than dogs." That's just an unfounded prejudice against people who like cats. I'm not even going to comment on how you treat your girlfriends or wife.

Gender is an idea (not more prejudiced than other ideas) about how people behave and how they are perceived. — Ecurb

To be specific, and in philosophy specificity in definitions is important: Gender: The non-biological expectations that one or more people have about how a sex should express themselves in public. For example, "Men are expected to wear top hats, women are not."

I put those definitions at the start of the OP so that you know exactly what I'm talking about. In this conversation, that is gender. This is backed by gender theory. Gender is a social belief that each sex should act a particular way in public because of their sex. It is socially agreed upon prejudice. And acting upon prejudice as if its more important than the person's reality of their sex is sexist. So again, if I tell a boy, "You like dolls, and the gender of girls is they like dolls. (Society has declared this without science, just group opinion). Therefore if you like dolls, you're a girl now." that's sexist. If you disagree, explain why this specific situation is not sexist please.

So it is not rude to ask a person to use preferred pronouns. — Ecurb

Asking someone to participate in racism, sexism, or any kind of ism is rude. You have not disagreed with this. Therefore you need to explain why the above situation I mentioned is not sexist. The situation I mentioned above is saying that because the boy acts in a way society prejudices that only girls should act, he's really a girl, we should treat him like a girl, and perhaps someone would also come along and say, "They should transition their body to align with their gender".