The reason I won't call you "king" is that you don't think yourself a king. Transsexuals are not confused as to what their biology is or in what distinguishes them from other people. There is no delusionary thinking and there is no confusion. They are simply using a word to designate themselves with a full understanding of who they actually are. — Hanover

Yes, but this is a fallacy of composition. For the vast majority of humans, and most other species, sexual traits are intrinsic and easily identifiable phenotypically and consistent with the genotype of that entity. There is nothing wrong with the fact that transexuals exist outside of the understood norm, but there is a problem with using a uniquely small smaple of an entire species as a predicate for an argument that has implications for all members of that species.

So, when a biologically born male who is now presenting as a female uses the pronoun "she," she is not then saying she was born a female. She is using the term for one thing and you for another and then you attempt to use your term on her, thus the equivocation fallacy I've pointed out. Her pronoun use doesn't have ontological impact. — Hanover

Well no, the violation of reason begins with the violation of the law of identity. A male is a male forever, as determined by the male's genetic composition. "She" will always maintain the final authority over her own usage of words and the manner in which they are employed. However, I will maintain the exact same authority in the opposite direction. And her pronoun does begin to have an ontological valence at the very moment that the individual in question places an expectation of a particular kind of usage of language on the part of others. Especially a usage that violates a persons individual paradigm and coherent understanding of a concept, or word. If that isn't a factor, there is no issue.

That is, if you called yourself "king" because you used that term to describe being the first born in your family, I could not declare you a liar because you aren't a monarch. You never intended the term to be used that way and didn't try to trick anyone into thinking you were actually a king. — Hanover

Then you should let these people know that such a manner of usage is expected on their part to not only be employed by them consistently, and not ambiguously, but inquired of others as to whether or not they are also voluntarily willing to participate. Otherwise, it is authoritarianism lite. Keep in mind such a standard is, in fact, a fallacy of ambiguity, so the responsiblity for keeping the peace as regards usage is that of the person using language differently than established usage on the part of majority of the population.

Logic schmlogic though. You have a bone to pick with the transsexuals, so go forth and ridicule them and tell them you must be a sheepdog because you feel it in your heart and soul and so you demand to be called Fido. — Hanover

No, I don't think so. I think he has an issue with the idea that science is being disregarded, in favor of whim. Which I too have a problem with. The more this kind of accusation get's tossed around, the more people will embody this accusation just to piss off whoever is doing the tossing.

Well no, the violation of reason begins with the violation of the law of identity. A male is a male forever, as determined by the male's genetic composition. "She" will always maintain the final authority over her own usage of words and the manner in which they are employed. However, I will maintain the exact same authority in the opposite direction. And her pronoun does begin to have an ontological valence at the very moment that the individual in question places an expectation of a particular kind of usage of language on the part of others. Especially a usage that violates a persons individual paradigm and coherent understanding of a concept, or word. If that isn't a factor, there is no issue. — Garrett Travers

Language is not mandated by ontology. Language is determined by use. There is no male "essence" that can be reduced to anything, including chromosomes. If a person walked about and looked in every way like a man, you would call him a man, even should you later learn of some strange chromosomal variation. This is to say that you don't use the word "man" to reference an XY constitution, but you use it to reference a host of factors, many of which are not entirely consistent from case to case. The usage of the word "man" finds itself evolving.

When I was growing up, we learned the pronoun "he" was to be used to designate the third person objective because there is no neutral personal pronoun in English. You would say, "One should always eat his green beans." Why this reasonable person had to be a man was a matter of convention, but it's since been changed. If you want to maintain it, have at it, but you'll sound antiquated by some, sexist by others. The words you use are like the clothes you wear. They communicate how you wish to present yourself.

Then you should let these people know that such a manner of usage is expected on their part to not only be employed by them consistently, and not ambiguously, but inquired of others as to whether or not they are also voluntarily willing to participate. Otherwise, it is authoritarianism lite. Keep in mind such a standard is, in fact, a fallacy of ambiguity, so the responsibility for keeping the peace as regards usage is that of the person using language differently than established usage on the part of majority of the population. — Garrett Travers

I'm not arguing for prescriptive word usage from either side, but I am pointing out that be aware of what you wish to convey when you choose your words. If you are aware that a person wishes to identify as female and you insist upon using a male pronoun to refer to her, you will not simply be communicating your desire to adhere to traditional standards, but you will communicating your lack of respect for the person you're speaking to. You can tell her to take no offense and that you're simply a traditionalist, but I don't see that really working.

Language is not mandated by ontology. Language is determined by use. There is no male "essence" that can be reduced to anything, including chromosomes. If a person walked about and looked in every way like a man, you would call him a man, even should you later learn of some strange chromosomal variation. This is to say that you don't use the word "man" to reference an XY constitution, but you use it to reference a host of factors, many of which are not entirely consistent from case to case. The usage of the word "man" finds itself evolving. — Hanover

Didn't say it was. I said that langauge becomes an ontological force when living entities actively place expectations of usage upon other extant and conscious beings. That's as ontological as ontological gets. As far as XY, that's half correct. I am referencing XY, but only in relation to consistent, and reliably observed emergence of XY phenotypical characteristics. Thus, to expect me to do something different isn't just absurd, it is outrageous, and it is particular the perception of that expectation that has ignited furor. No kidding. Now, that doesn't meanthat such an expectation is consistently present in fact when being perceived, and one should keeo that in mind at all times.

When I was growing up, we learned the pronoun "he" was to be used to designate the third person objective because there is no neutral personal pronoun in English. You would say, "One should always eat his green beans." Why this reasonable person had to be a man was a matter of convention, but it's since been changed. If you want to maintain it, have at it, but you'll sound antiquated by some, sexist by others. The words you use or like the clothes you wear. They communicate how you wish to present yourself. — Hanover

These are all acceptable conclusions, I agree.

I'm not arguing for prescriptive word usage from either side, but I am pointing out that be aware of what you wish to convey when you choose your words. If you are aware that a person wishes to identify as female and you insist upon using a male pronoun to refer to her, you will not simply be communicating your desire to adhere to traditional standards, but you will communicating your lack of respect for the person you're speaking to. You can tell her to take no offense and that you're simply a traditionalist, but I don't see that really working. — Hanover

And, believe it or not, that is precisely what we on the other side of this debate are hoping that you and your ilk also remain aware of in our direction, by and large. It isn't the usage of these pronouns that has ever been the issue, I swear to you. It has always been about the prospect of you expecting me to abide concepts that violate coherent understandings without my consent, and perhaps even using force to make me comply. This is PRECISELY what ignited the "Jordan Peterson" event. As far as offense goes, it means nothing to me. However, if offense means something to others, then it will be their responsibility to facilitate such offense-free environments through proper communication with other conscious human beings of equal, but separate value who possess different coherent world view, who exist in that environment. My assertion, and belief, is that if this is seen to by the lgbtq community, they will absolutely have no issues, or very minimal, with any human in this country as a general rule. Please relay this info to your lgbtq friends, as I have done myself.

As far as XY, that's half correct. I am referencing XY, but only in relation to consistent, and reliably observed emergence of XY phenotypical characteristics. Thus, to expect me to do something different isn't just absurd, it is outrageous, and it is particular the perception of that expectation that has ignited furor. — Garrett Travers

Men were called "men" long before we knew anything of chromosomes. My guess is that you wouldn't know a male chromosome if you saw it, and if tomorrow you learned that half the men had XZ chromosomes and not XY ones, you'd consider yourself educated. What this means is that you likely call men "men" because they look like men and act like men. You don't call MtF transexuals "women" because they don't look that way to you. If medical science could do a better job, you might change. That is, if the person had a functioning uterus and all other sexual organs and looked indistinct from any other woman, maybe you wouldn't have any objection.

What ignited furor was the supposed immorality of men acting as women and the societal expectation that it be accepted as normal. The passion did not arise over esoteric word usage and the furor that emerges when one is asked to use a new word. I don't remember such outrage when people were asked to stop calling Pluto a planet.

Men were called "men" long before we knew anything of chromosomes. My guess is that you wouldn't know a male chromosome if you saw it, and if tomorrow you learned that half the men had XZ chromosomes and not XY ones, you'd consider yourself educated. What this means is that you likely call men "men" because they look like men and act like men. You don't call MtF transexuals "women" because they don't look that way to you. If medical science could do a better job, you might change. That is, if the person had a functioning uterus and all other sexual organs and looked indistinct from any other woman, maybe you wouldn't have any objection. — Hanover

This is specifically because the only thing we had to go off of, again, were consitently observable, emergent characteristics of the male phenotype. All species have this detection ability, and employ them functionally, by and large. And, my wife is a biologist, so let's keep the accusations of ignorance to oneself, moving forward, I won't be polite about it after this. And as far as MtF transexuals, I actually may, depending on what their genetic code revealed to me just in technicality. However, again, an biologically abberant expression of genes does not, and should not constitute a conceptual approach to the whole of the species, especially when the established conceptual approach is, in fact, accurate for 99% or so of the rest of that population. The outliers will have to be appropriately integrated into the conceptual framework, thereby expanding it without dismissing already coherent and correspondent understandings. You see?

What ignited furor was the supposed immorality of men acting as women and the societal expectation that it be accepted as normal. — Hanover

So, no it isn't. And if you keep accusing people of this kind of ill-will, I'm going to show you what I think of people who would seek to use shame to overpower and dismiss reason and established science. Quit doing this. I have explicated to you the real issue at hand, that is better served by your intelligence in the pursuit of formulating conclusions not derived from social phenomena that is strictly conflict based as a matter of course. Philosophy, humanity's last and only hope now, needs you to assess these kinds of situations with that kind of approach. We need to fix issues, not perpetuate them.

The passion did not arise over esoteric word usage and the furor that emerges when one is asked to use a new word. I don't remember such outrage when people were asked to stop calling Pluto a planet. — Hanover

That's correct, because word usage isn't the usage. It is the perception of compelled, or willingness to compell such usage. For example, I have never stopped calling Pluto a planet, and guess what, it has since been reinstated in itsplanetary status. So, the people who thought I had aught to change my approach can kiss my ass and join me in the enlightened crew after I get my apology. Now, they can still join even though they haven't given one to me, but I'm always gonna know they owe to me, which will be enough for. And yes, it did ignite furor in the physics community, but the physics community is known for employing reason and adversarial co-operation in the pursuit of truth and homeostasis within paradigms of science. See what I'm saying?

You seem to be saying that ignorance of gender identity theory is part of the problem and Bitter Crank seems to be saying that “delusion” is problematic, or rather that sex/gender cannot be changed. It’s not clear if BC believes sex and gender can be more or less independent of each other. — praxis

My understanding was that BC thinks it’s delusional to believe you can change your sex, but he seems to agree with me that psychological gender, as a perceptual-affective style, is independent of biological sex, which is what I interpret him to mean by ‘gaydar’. For myself and my peers, gaydar doesn’t simply refer to the ability to detect if a man is sexually interested in another man, but rather the identification of a constellation of behavioral and appearance cues( dress, pronunciation, interests, posture, demeanor, walk) as pointing to what I have been calling a gay gender-associated perceptual-affective style. It’s interesting how it’s common for members of the gay community to refer to each other as ‘she’ or ‘queen’ or ‘girl’. I don’t think this is just social
conventions that we learn from each other. This use of language comes directly from the way we feel inside, this equal dose( and in those men who are strongly effeminate a much higher dose) of feminine style and masculine style.

interesting and perhaps revealing that your description of gender mentions only who one is sexually attracted to, and nothing about what I would consider to be a more central aspect of gender for many in the gay community, which has to do with a global perceptual-affective style
— Joshs

I will have to plead guilty to your charge.

When it comes to "being gay" which as you say involves a global perceptual-affective style, I find myself with a deficient vocabulary to adequately express what I experience. I meet men in ordinary social settings and we may immediately recognize each other as gay, but I find it difficult to pin down exactly what the signals are. This may be one reason I have always preferred to look for sexual partners in places where "pre-sorting" had taken place--bath houses, gay bars, night-time cruising areas in parks. Some people seem to be able to walk through a figurative Grand Central Station and reliably find prospective partners.

These is something abut deportment, grooming, details of dress, speech patterns, interests, and so forth that together add up to a strong signal. It's like art -- I know it when I see it. Some people are better at this than others, and some people with sharp gaydar are actually pretty straight. An some very gay guys (part of the 2.5%) don't signal their gayness very strongly. And some straight people see gay, but are not. But, gay signals and gaydar work well enough most of the time. — Bitter Crank

When it comes to "being gay" which as you say involves a global perceptual-affective style, I find myself with a deficient vocabulary to adequately express what I experience. I meet men in ordinary social settings and we may immediately recognize each other as gay, but I find it difficult to pin down exactly what the signals are….

There is something abut deportment, grooming, details of dress, speech patterns, interests, and so forth that together add up to a strong signal. It's like art -- I know it when I see it. Some people are better at this than others, and some people with sharp gaydar are actually pretty straight. An some very gay guys (part of the 2.5%) don't signal their gayness very strongly. And some straight people see gay, but are not. But, gay signals and gaydar work well enough most of the time. — Bitter Crank

Is sexual attraction more biological sex or more a part of psychological gender? The fact that some transsexuals are not gay seems to indicate that it’s more biological sex, and also that may gay people’s gender matches their biological sex. — praxis

I feel strongly that for myself and many other gay men I know, the gender-associated perceptual-affective style is directly responsible for sexual attraction. I believe that , as Freud said, in the most general sense we are all bisexual in that we all have the capability to learn to enjoy sexual relations with both biological males and females. But the strong preference most gay men feel for same sec partners is a result of the way the structure and feel of the male body implies behavioral traits ( strength, aggressiveness, etc) that gay men gravitate to. Think of sexual partnering as like a dance. To grossly over-generalize so you get the point, Heterosexual attraction is a dance of yin and yang: the yielding, more passive , emotive , soft characteristics of femininity ( and the feminine body) complement and complete the emotionally unaware, dominating or commanding aspects of masculine behavior and the masculine body.

They fit like pieces of a puzzle. For many gay men , who have bits of both masculine and feminine gender within themselves, the fit is more of a twinning than a yin and yang. Many gay men are repulsed by the signals they get from straight women who exude feminine passivity and softness while expecting the gay male to exude decisive, strong, commanding masculine traits. The gay man exudes a mixture of both sides and is attracted to that same mixture from their partner.

I dated a woman in college and that was pretty much the dynamic: her expectations of strength and decisiveness from me, for me to ‘take care of her’ even though she was my intellectual equal and headed for her own career.

This is specifically because the only thing we had to go off of, again, were consitently observable, emergent characteristics of the male phenotype. All species have this detection ability, and employ them functionally, by and large. — Garrett Travers

The reason we call people male or female in the vernacular has nothing to do with their genes. It has to do with how they look and act.

So, no it isn't. And if you keep accusing people of this kind of ill-will, I'm going to show you what I think of people who would seek to use shame to overpower and dismiss reason and established science. — Garrett Travers

Of course it is. Gender roles have played and continue to play significant roles in our society and a blurring of who is male and who is female has caused the outrage. Maybe your outrage comes from the technical word changes and you'd be just as mad if we started calling bowls "cups," but I think more is at play in this battle over gender identity than just words.

And yes, it did ignite furor in the physics community, but the physics community is known for employing reason and adversarial co-operation in the pursuit of truth and homeostasis within paradigms of science. See what I'm saying? — Garrett Travers

It ignited interest and debate. There is no moral consequence to how planets are named or designated. There is when it comes genders. That's just part of the Western tradition and the norms for our society.

The reason we call people male or female in the vernacular has nothing to do with their genes. It has to do with how they look and act. — Hanover

Phenotype is an expression of genotype, or epigenetic influence. There is no distinction, irrespective of recognition of such a fact.

Of course it is. Gender roles have played and continue to play significant roles in our society and a blurring of who is male and who is female has caused the outrage. — Hanover

The blurring was done by people not adhereing to the genetically established paradigm, not the rest of us. Which, again, is fine if your usage is not presented as a compulsion, the perception of which being what has caused the outrage on the side of traditional paradigm adherents.

Maybe your outrage comes from the technical word changes and you'd be just as mad if we started calling bowls "cups," but I think more is at play in this battle over gender identity than just words. — Hanover

No, it's a battle between voluntary and involuntary participation in a new linguistic paradigm. Seriously, that's the issue. That of which only requires an unassuage perception of involuntary paradigmatic integration on the part of non-paradigm adherents. I promise you that that is the only place you genuinely need to look. Remember Pluto and how the scientists settled their differences.

It ignited interest and debate. There is no moral consequence to how planets are named or designated. — Hanover

There would have been had there been any perception that the acceptance of such a proposition, which happened to not be true techinically, were expected to be incorporated into a paradigm via involuntary participation.

There is when it comes genders. — Hanover

Scientists didn't lobby government to write a code in law claiming that Pluto must be accepted as a planetoid, or one would face rammifications administered by a monopoly on force. You know, like how Bill C-16 did? Like how the attempt to instantiate hate-speech laws has engulfed the social-reconstructionsist platform? That's specifically the difference: force.

Scientists didn't lobby government to write a code in law claiming that Pluto must be accepted as a planetoid, or one would face rammifications administered by a monopoly on force. You know, like how Bill C-16 did? Like how the attempt to instantiate hate-speech laws has engulfed the social-reconstructionsist platform? That's specifically the difference: force. — Garrett Travers

There is no law dictating that you are required to call transsexuals anything. You can be as offensive or inoffensive as you like. The US has no hate speech laws. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/07/no-theres-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/

If your beef if over a specific Canadian bill, then maybe you have point there. I really don't follow what Canada does or know how over-reaching their free speech limitations are. I'd be opposed to limiting all sorts of bigotry and stupidity because I do think the right to free speech includes that.

I believe that , as Freud said, in the most general sense we are all bisexual in that we all have the capability to learn to enjoy sexual relations with both biological males and females. — Joshs

Very true, nevertheless heterosexuals who can enjoy sexual relations with both sexes, perhaps even in a ‘twinning dance’, are still sexuality attracted to the opposite sex, at least primarily. I wonder if the same is true for homosexuals.

There is no law dictating that you are required to call transsexuals anything. You can be as offensive or inoffensive as you like. The US has no hate speech laws. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/07/no-theres-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/ — Hanover

Carefully read what I am saying, I made no such assertion. I brought to your attention that in certain Western nations, there are indeed enforcing such laws, such as Canada. As an aside, other such Western nations are actively debating in the world's finest educational institutions, such as Oxford and Cambridge, to instantiate such compulsions and restrictions on speech with the threat of force. Broadly speaking, the propostion of violence-regulated speech codes are becoming more, and more prevalent in positive consideration. Meaning, the perception of a threat against free expression I accordance with our internal coherence on given topics are, in fact, a genuine perception. Not that the U.S. has instantiated those compulsions or restrictions, America dies on that day.

If your beef if over a specific Canadian bill, then maybe you have point there. — Hanover

No, not specifically. What C-16 represents to me is a threat of similar compulsions being placed on me by my states, and the popularity of this growing to a point where fiat sentiment overcomes human reason. I have no beef, per se, with C-16, it is the responsibility of Canadians to dispose of their little fascist mommy's boy and be free again. The same will be our responsibility with such tyranny comes to America, which again, is a genuine threat at this point in history, without question.

I really don't follow what Canada does or know how over-reaching their free speech limitations are. — Hanover

Yeah, same here.

I'd be opposed to limiting all sorts of bigotry and stupidity because I do think the right to free speech includes that. — Hanover

The right to free speech includes all human expressions that do not violate the human expressions of others. Any other standard is at best illogical, at worst the pursuit of interpersonal ownership and control of consciousness. And I will debate anybody that thinks they to go with me on that topic, any time, any place, and people, any number of people.

What C-16 represents to me is a threat of similar compulsions being placed on me by my states, and the popularity of this growing to a point where fiat sentiment overcomes human reason. I have no beef, per se, with C-16, it is the responsibility of Canadians to dispose of their little fascist mommy's boy and be free again. The same will be our responsibility with such tyranny comes to America, which again, is a genuine threat at this point in history, without question. — Garrett Travers

Let's look at this from the 100 mile overhead view so you can maybe understand my questioning these objections.

We have a group of people who generally are ostracized and ridiculed and thought of as sexual deviants. Their behavior is considered sinful and immoral by large segments of the population as it violates specific rules about gender roles and sexuality in our society.

Against that backdrop, objections are raised not as to the immorality of the behavior or as to how it simply violates societal norms, but as to the outrageous burden they place on average folks living day to day. Where we used to have very clear grammar rules, we now have to worry about "him," "her," and "their," when we didn't have to before.

So I drill down on this question about language burdens, and I'm told it's not the specific words that really cause the problem, but it's in the abstract, where I shouldn't have a governmental body telling me what to do as it relates to speech. The transsexual pronoun issue is just one example from that abstract concern.

I then drill down further on that question, and I'm told it's really not an issue in the abstract because it's conceded that your jurisdiction doesn't impose such prohibitions. You then explain the issue is actually in the hypothetical because you fear the cancer of Canada might spread southward and you'll then be burdened by having a government tell you how to speak. That is, today we find ourselves on the precipice, teetering back and forth, and unless we snuff out this pronoun mind control, we might as well hand over our First Amendment free speech rights to the KGB banging at the door.

My response to this is that I agree that free speech rights are worth protecting and I would object to burdens being imposed by the government with respect to it. I am however extremely suspicious when someone claims that it is the transsexual that poses our greatest risks to free speech. It makes me wonder whether this group is being singled out as the greatest threat to our free speech because they actually are, or whether it's all a pretextual effort to further attack this historically attacked group.

gaydar — Joshs

I'd be a lot happier with gaydar if it were more reliable. Like radar, it's a great advance over flying around in the dark. One might use 'gaydar' as a very narrow 'sex-finding' skill, but it is based on a 'gestalt' that includes "the identification of a constellation of behavioral and appearance cues (dress, pronunciation, interests, posture, demeanor, walk) as pointing to what I have been calling a gay gender-associated perceptual-affective style."

It’s interesting how it’s common for members of the gay community to refer to each other as ‘she’ or ‘queen’ or ‘girl’. I don’t think this is just social conventions that we learn from each other. This use of language comes directly from the way we feel inside, this equal dose( and in those men who are strongly effeminate a much higher dose) of feminine style and masculine style. — Joshs

While I have heard gay men refer to each other as "'she' or 'queen' or 'girl' [add in 'sister'] since I started traveling in gay circles (some 55 years), there have always been some men who did, and some men who didn't. I associate it with 'camp'. Some men 'camp' and some men don't. Some men are campy all the time, which I find kind of tiresome. Without a time machine, the only way we have of determining whether this is historically 'built in' or 'learned' is to look at print sources which are unreliable at capturing occasional instances of campy speech. Does Walt Whitman use feminine pronouns for men? I don't think so, but that's a guess.

"Camp" (high camp, mid camp, low camp"... see Susan Sontag on Camp, 1964).

Why do some men use, or not use campy speech? One guess is that it depends on whether or not they have immersed themselves in campy gay bars from the get go. It takes practice to do well. Men who don't drink and smoke (and go to bars) are less likely to be campy [theoretical postulate... no evidence on hand]. Men from rural hick backwaters [me], however profoundly gay they might be, tend not to be campy. Class has something to do with it. Lower class, more likely; middle class--too insecure; upper class -- more likely to practice high camp. [not fact based; conjecture]. And, as you say, at least some of it seems to stem from the self-protrayed gender role. Some guys are consistently butch/macho/masculine, and some guys are consistently the opposite, and probably always were, one way or another.

Oscar Fingal O'Flahertie Wills Wilde (1854-1900) practiced high camp. He was gay and straight (much more complicated than merely gay, straight, bisexual).

A male is a male forever, as determined by the male's genetic composition. — Garrett Travers

Do you believe there is such a thing as psychological gender, apart from biological chromosomal sex?
Paychological gender would refer to a brain-wiring that produces what I call a perceptual-affective masculine or feminine style. This difference in behavior is what allows dog experts and breeders to tell male dogs from
female dogs based on their behavior. Do you think the same brain-wiring difference separates human males and females?

We have a group of people who generally are ostracized and ridiculed and thought of as sexual deviants. Their behavior is considered sinful and immoral by large segments of the population as it violates specific rules about gender roles and sexuality in our society. — Hanover

I agree.

Against that backdrop, objections are raised not as to the immorality of the behavior or as to how it simply violates societal norms, but as to the outrageous burden they place on average folks living day to day. — Hanover

That is correct. Or, the perceived burden, which is just as powerful a motivator most of the time.

Where we used to have very clear grammar rules, we now have to worry about "him," "her," and "their," when we didn't have to before. — Hanover

No, that's not the issue. This issue is what you described above, "outrageous burden." That burden being the expectation, and potentially forced participation of, adopting a linguistic framework that violates my coherent one, instead of pursuing compatibility, which is the easiest to achieve in the world, believe it or not.

So I drill down on this question about language burdens, and I'm told it's not the specific words that really cause the problem, but it's in the abstract, where I shouldn't have a governmental body telling me what to do as it relates to speech. The transsexual pronoun issue is just one example from that abstract concern. — Hanover

Correct.

I then drill down further on that question, and I'm told it's really not an issue in the abstract because it's conceded that your jurisdiction doesn't impose such prohibitions. — Hanover

No, it has and is being proposed as legislation all across the world as we speak.

You then explain the issue is actually in the hypothetical because you fear the cancer of Canada might spread southward and you'll then be burdened by having a government tell you how to speak. — Hanover

No, I explain that objective instances of it happening, and by proxy the push to make it happen all across the world, is NOT a hypothetical, it is a clear potentiality.

That is, today we find ourselves on the precipice, teetering back and forth, and unless we snuff out this pronoun mind control, we might as well hand over our First Amendment free speech rights to the KGB banging at the door. — Hanover

No, we found ourselves inching closer, objectively, as has been done in other parts of the world, to something that violates human reason. And, just for clarity's sake, any proposal that includes the compelled expression, or silence of expression the Human Consciousness that isn't itself a violation of the Human Consciousness, is evil and must be battled to the hilt. The historical record is clear as to what states do with that specific intrusion into human life.

My response to this is that I agree that free speech rights are worth protecting and I would object to burdens being imposed by the government with respect to it. — Hanover

No, they're not worth protecting, they're the sole point of origin of all human activity and no claim to a right to the ownership of that human activity by anyone other than the human in question will ever be anything short of evil that must be eradicated from the face of the earth.

I am however extremely suspicious when someone claims that it is the transsexual that poses our greatest risks to free speech. — Hanover

The moment that violations of the Human Consciousness are no longer being proposed as a matter of legislation, such a concern will disappear forever.

It makes me wonder whether this group is being singled out as the greatest threat to our free speech because they actually are, or whether it's all a pretextual effort to attack this historically attacked group. — Hanover

No, they are attempting to single themselves out as justifiable arbiters of the monopoly on force to the degree they currently wish to employ it, a monopoly which is itself illegitimate to begin with. There is no group, by the way, of any kind that hasn't been historically mistreated. And none so much as philosophers. Power is indiscriminant. Governments abuse whoever they have to abuse to get what they want.

Why do some men use, or not use campy speech? One guess is that it depends on whether or not they have immersed themselves in campy gay bars from the get go. It takes practice to do well. Men who don't drink and smoke (and go to bars) are less likely to be campy [theoretical postulate... no evidence on hand]. Men from rural hick backwaters [me], however profoundly gay they might be, tend not to be campy — Bitter Crank

Is this all learned theater? Did you see La Cage aux Folles?

Remember the scene where the champagne was uncorked and everyone did a girlish scream? Do
you think that was pre-mediated theater or a deeply pre_conscious , reflexive perceptual reaction that gets to the heart of what I’m talking about?
Camp isn’t based on thin air, it’s the translation of a perceptual style many gay men are born with into something exaggerated and put on. Gay rural bumpkins may not know anything about camp but I will guarantee you they have those same perceptual tendencies that make many gays unable to hide what they are despite their best efforts.

No, we found ourselves inching closer, objectively, as has been done in other parts of the world, to something that violates human reason. And, just for clarity's sake, any proposal that includes the compelled expression, or silence of expression the Human Consciousness that isn't itself a violation of the Human Consciousness, is evil and must be battled to the hilt. The historical record is clear as to what states do with that specific intrusion into human life. — Garrett Travers

You need not fight the American Revolution again. Your side won. We wrote a Constitution that has enshrined every principle you speak of into the very fabric of our country, so much so that we intepret our Constitution much like the Bible, it's each inerrant word leading our every move.

I know what horrors lie beyond our border. That's always been something worth fighting to protect ourselves against.

Leave the transsexuals out of this battle for the soul of our country is all I'm saying. They aren't the enemy. They are the scapegoat. It can be hard to decipher one from the other.

Indeed. Some of my gay friends at school were 'camp' before they were 10. Pretty sure they had not been into any clubs or bars and certainly they had no models to borrow from.

Some very campy gay man (can't remember) said "I never had a closet to hide in" because he was a campy child.

This sort of thing was just outside my cultural and experiential zone. Jerry, Rich, and Vic, three guys I met in my first year at Backwater State College (1964), were, I long since understood, campy and cruisey, but at the time that was something I hadn't previously witnessed. I did not know what to make of it.

So yes, I can acknowledge that these three guys, 2 rural, 1 urban at age 18 in backwater Minnesota were campy. Going back a little further, even I exhibited campy behavior at the age of 12, which wasn't appreciated.

Remember the scene where the champagne was uncorked and everyone did a girlish scream? Do you think that was pre-mediated theater or a deeply pre_conscious , reflexive perceptual reaction that gets to the heart of what I’m talking about? — Joshs

La Cage, as a film, contained no actual spontaneous behavior of any kind. It employed a fair amount of exaggeration for effect, but sure, the gay characters didn't seem artificial.

Gay men in the Upper Midwest seem to be more tightly wrapped than gay men elsewhere in the country, though there are exceptions. When I moved to Boston from Minnesota in 1968 I found most people in Boston to be more open, spontaneous, and expressive than Midwesterners people. Others have observed the same differences.

I am a good example of a tightly wrapped, tightly screwed together gay man. I always needed a couple of drinks to loosen up enough to engage other men in bars, and I was by no means the only one. Do Midwesterners learn to be tightly wrapped and screwed together, or is it just the way we are? Geographical Determinism? Extreme weather? A disease spread by wood ticks?

Do Midwesterners learn to be tightly wrapped and screwed together, or is it just the way we are? Geographical Determinism? Extreme weather? A disease spread by wood ticks? — Bitter Crank

If you’re from Minnesota , there may be that Lake Wobegon Lutheran thing going on, “where all the women are strong, all the men are good-looking, and all the children are above average."

It is a Kinseyism that a lot of people are neither heterosexual or homosexual, they are bi-sexual. They are said to have satisfactory sex with both the same and opposite sex. (I'm taking this on faith, not on personal experience.). You have probably seen Kinsey's and other people's stats on bisexual behavior. A small percentage of men are exclusively homosexual (like...2.5%); a large percentage are exclusively heterosexual. Increasing percentages of men behave bisexually on their way to exclusive heterosexuality.

Is a man who has sex 60% with women and 40% with men homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual? Depends who is applying the definitions, I suppose. Kinsey (1894-1956) conducted his research in the 1940s and 1950s. His Institute at U-Indiana carries on today. How bisexual men found partners in the 1940s isn't clear to me -- I'd have to read a batch of Kinsey material, I suppose. And Kinsey's research was a new field: there was not a lot of nuts-and-bolts research before his.

Homophile advocate organizations (who have a vested interest in larger numbers) tend to claim 10% of the population as homosexual. I think this is wishful thinking. A friend of mine always asked, "If 10% of the population is gay, who is getting my share?"

In 2021, IPSOS, a French market research firm, conducted a large survey in 21 country, all continents. They found:

80% of people worldwide identified as heterosexual, 3% as homosexual, 4% as bisexual, and 1% each as pansexual, asexual, and other. Results indicated that significant differences in sexual identity have emerged between generations across the globe, with the youngest group, or Generation Z, being more likely to identify as bisexual (9%) than Millennials (4%), Generation X (3%) and Boomers (2%). Generation Z and Millennials were also more likely to identify as homosexual, with 4% and 3% doing so respectively, compared to 2% of Generation X and 1% of Boomers. In addition, the survey found that men are more likely than women to identify as homosexual (4% vs. 1%).

There are, of course, obvious problems in pinning down actual sexual behavior. Unless one can use a massive and intrusive 'bird watching' approach, one has to rely on self-report.

You need not fight the American Revolution again. Your side won. We wrote a Constitution that has enshrined every principle you speak of into the very fabric of our country, so much so that we intepret our Constitution much like the Bible, it's each inerrant word leading our every move. — Hanover

A paper document means nothing to a society that does not value such principles. I don't speak to you from the perspective of any written document, either. The Constitution is an artifact of a philosophical tradition that predates the Enlightenment, and from whence almost every Scientific Revolutionary and Enlightenment principle was plagiarised, precepts that have given rise to the most thriving societies in the history of Human Kind. The Constitution, particularly the first 2 Amendments, are nothing more than the logical conclusions regarding what a government has any justification to do to people, and what it is sworn to protect in accordance with that philosophical tradition. And it is from the perspective of that trdition's continuation that I engage with you. And, so you understand, the provisions of the first 2 Amendments are not meant to lead you, but allow you to your own leading, as long as you don't violate the same intrinsic entitlement of others. We are a failed society to the very degree at which those 2 Amendments are violated, particularly the 1st.

I know what horrors lie beyond our border. That's always been something worth fighting to protect ourselves against. — Hanover

I agree. And something I am committed to protecting if the need arises.

Leave the transsexuals out of this battle for the soul of our country is all I'm saying. They aren't the enemy. They are the scapegoat. It can be hard to decipher one from the other. — Hanover

That's been precisely my point, friend. The enemy is not the people who differ in opinion, or understandings of concepts, but those willing to use force to make you share, or participate in their behavioral implications. By and large, this is not a phenomenon among the majority of any group of individuals. But, it is specifically those who are perceiving unequal treatment that are preyed upon by the power hungry to induce the aggression required to desire, and achieve such authority in the form of enshrined law. We have been a failed society from the exact moment that Bill of Rights was rattified, and subsequently violated through discriminatory recognition, and the complete violation of it in the form of those who did not make the preferred list of the big club. The state, and all of its permutations are not just your real enemies, but the enemies of Human Kind. Nonetheless, I will always leave them out of the battle for the soul of the Human Race, as long as they do not stand to violate it themselves.

You have probably seen Kinsey's and other people's stats on bisexual behavior. — Bitter Crank

Just reviewed some of the findings on the site, interesting. Strangely, I noticed that one of the most commonly searched topics on the site is penis size. Not to boast but I'm happy to report that I'm above average. :party:

Congratulations; as Ronald Reagan said, "Trust but verify."

the most commonly searched topics on the site is penis size. — praxis

This is something else that Sigmund Freud got wrong. It isn't women who have penis envy, it is men. We all want to know how well we hang in comparison with other men--desperately hoping and mis-measuring to show that we are at least 1/8th of an inch above average.

It's not the ship, it's the motion of the ocean. (consolation prize)

Do you believe there is such a thing as psychological gender, apart from biological chromosomal sex? — Joshs

Yes, but not in those kinds of terms. The way it appears to be me, given what is known about cognition, is that personalities are split into types. This as a result of genetic predisposition, epigenetic influences, abuse and trauma, and ostracism or overparenting. Psychological gender is not the right term to be using, and such a concept only applies to a radically small proportion of society. Menaing you don't just get to appropriate terms from 90%+ of the population and apply them to things that do not make coherent sense. Psychological gender, as a personality type, is better understood as something more like identity-ambiguity personality type. Gender is used to describe what is already coherently established and associated with a vast. vast plethora of biological disparaties between men and women, and are not terms to be appropriated by people that cannot even define what they are themselves. You ask these folks what these terms mean, and they say anything but the established paradigm, and offer no alternative explanations. Some simply leave it at, "it cannot be defined by me." In which case I'm left to insist, "then go find a way to do so without using words already in usage to describe something else."

Paychological gender would refer to a brain-wiring that produces what I call a perceptual-affective masculine or feminine style. — Joshs

And just exactly what is this brain wiring? Any clearly observed instances of it? Any reason why an aberrant brain wiring would imply the use of labels already in use by other people? This is the ambiguity I'm talking about with this stuff. It needs to be clearly defined, so that I can integrate it into my linguistic paradigm in a separate, but equal compartment to men and women, and gender. You understand? That's a big problem here. There's a reason why the logical fallacies are present and identified in logic. The moment one is introduced into an assertion or an argument, it derails the entire logically coherent body of thought that led up to that point, if it isn't highlighted and dismissed. The fallacy of ambiguity, making assertions predicated on not agreed upon langauge, is what that is. It isn't just a desire of mine, it is a requirement to clearly define terms, before any peaceful and productive conversation can be had on the subject. And damn sure before legislation begins to be proposed.

This difference in behavior is what allows dog experts and breeders to tell male dogs from
female dogs based on their behavior. Do you think the same brain-wiring difference separates human males and females? — Joshs

That's not even a question in neuroscience. Differences in the male and female brains have been an established scientific fact for years now. That being said, you have to understand, the human brain is literally the most advanced, sophisticated, structural and functionally complex, creative, destructive, and productive singular system in the known universe, literally. Meaning, it can't just be a wiring thing that constitutes a conclusion. Personality types arise through complex processes that involve many factors. I do believe identity-ambiguity is a naturally emerging set of personality types within the context of the right influences on brain. But, in short, no, I do not believe anyone is "born this way," beyond what is genetically established. Nobody is born anyway out side of consistently observable biomarkers and genotypical phenomena, except in cases of problems in gestation. I think something far more complex is at work in all things human brain related. But, we don't know enough yet, which just intensifies the ambiguity issue.

Here's a source on differences, plenty where this comes from: https://stanmed.stanford.edu/2017spring/how-mens-and-womens-brains-are-different.html

in short, no, I do not believe anyone is "born this way," beyond what is genetically established. Nobody is born anyway out side of consistently observable biomarkers and genotypical phenomena, except in cases of problems in gestation. I think something far more complex is at work in all things human brain related. But, we don't know enough yet, which just intensifies the ambiguity issue. — Garrett Travers

The article you linked to mentioned male and female
chromosomal differences as a potential source of the gender-based behavioral differences they discuss. But it has not been proven that genes are the only source of such brain differences. There has been as much attention directed toward the hormonal environment in the womb, and this has been suggested as an explanation of homosexuality. That is, that more feminizing hormones and less testosterone in utero can create a more feminine brain in a male body.

If this is true, then perhaps many transsexuals can be seen as gay men and women who want their bodies to ‘match’ their brain wiring.

The article you linked to mentioned male and female
chromosomal differences as a potential source of the gender-based behavioral differences they discuss. But it has not been proven that genes are the only source of such brain differences. — Joshs

Is specifically assert this exact position above.

There has been as much attention directed toward the hormonal environment in the womb, and this has been suggested as an explanation of homosexuality. — Joshs

Yep, that's what I said.

If this is true, then perhaps many transsexuals can be seen as gay men and women who want their bodies to ‘match’ their brain wiring. — Joshs

Yes, if that is the most rationally consistent way to go about it. Again, all I care about is that established science isn't being overlooked, and that I am not forced to participate in something that violates my coherent linguistic framework. I need time to assess and integrate information. Which is exactly how they would feel If I brought to their attention something that violated their framework of understanding and expected them to participate. They would literally respond with opposition in almost every case of such a proposition.

If this is true, then perhaps many transsexuals can be seen as gay men and women who want their bodies to ‘match’ their brain wiring.
— Joshs

Yes, if that is the most rationally consistent way to go about it. — Garrett Travers

How is it rational see a biologically male sex and a psychologically female gender as a woman, or a biologically female sex and a psychologically male gender as a man?