Edit: ah never mind
The whole calling someone by a name they don't want to be called by (irrespective of whether they were born with it) makes me think of this.
DSGamer wrote:Or who insist on calling someone by their legal name?
EDIT: Damn it, SB, stop doing that.
Is Scooter the real legal first name of Scooter Libby? If not, we certainly didn't get a sh*t back then.
WIKI Break: Nope, it's not.
DSGamer wrote:Time for a fork of GWJ?
This issue feels like it's completely destroying GWJ. It's in so many threads. Can we just stop demonizing members of the community who have difficulty with this? Or who insist on calling someone by their legal name?
Who is demonizing members of the GWJ community? We're having an open, honest discussion. I may be ignorant, but it seems to me as this discussion has been respectful in how we deal with each other.
Ditto. Aside from me getting snippy with Nevin73, which I was corrected on, it's been a pretty good discussion IMO.
Sidenote, *highfive* to Nevin73 for respectfully correcting me in spite of my crotchetiness.
Farscry wrote:Nevin73 wrote:DSGamer wrote:Time for a fork of GWJ?
This issue feels like it's completely destroying GWJ. It's in so many threads. Can we just stop demonizing members of the community who have difficulty with this? Or who insist on calling someone by their legal name?
Who is demonizing members of the GWJ community? We're having an open, honest discussion. I may be ignorant, but it seems to me as this discussion has been respectful in how we deal with each other.
Ditto. Aside from me getting snippy with Nevin73, which I was corrected on, it's been a pretty good discussion IMO.
Sidenote, *highfive* to Nevin73 for respectfully correcting me in spite of my crotchetiness. :)
Demonize is a bit strong, but threads like this have put me on the lookout for communities where LGBT understanding and acceptance isn't something that has to be taught and debated.
Don't leave me!
Farscry wrote:Nevin73 wrote:DSGamer wrote:Time for a fork of GWJ?
This issue feels like it's completely destroying GWJ. It's in so many threads. Can we just stop demonizing members of the community who have difficulty with this? Or who insist on calling someone by their legal name?
Who is demonizing members of the GWJ community? We're having an open, honest discussion. I may be ignorant, but it seems to me as this discussion has been respectful in how we deal with each other.
Ditto. Aside from me getting snippy with Nevin73, which I was corrected on, it's been a pretty good discussion IMO.
Sidenote, *highfive* to Nevin73 for respectfully correcting me in spite of my crotchetiness. :)
Demonize is a bit strong, but threads like this have put me on the lookout for communities where LGBT understanding and acceptance isn't something that has to be taught and debated.
I can't understand what it must be like to be in your shoes but I would say that understanding and acceptance of any minority position absolutely needs to be taught. Human beings aren't wired to be naturally accepting of those different than themselves. I generally see these threads as a net positve in that people are sharing how their minds work and how their thinking is formed.
And I do believe that if I keep working at it and trying to make them more clear, people who disagree will begin to understand what a big deal this stuff is. Because, yeah, it really doesn't seem like such a big thing when you're looking in from the outside... but on the inside, it's a lot different.
No way to solve that except keep trying and trying.
Indeed.
Culture shifts don't come easily. And to those standing on the side of not wanting to shift, I understand that it does make them feel like suddenly they're being persecuted or demonized. It's hard to move past that feeling. But that doesn't mean that the shift shouldn't happen.
Until Hypatian wrote her "coming out" post and started talking about the reality of life as a trans* individual, I honestly had no knowledge or understanding of any of the concerns or issues facing them (or heck, any understanding of what being trans* versus cis* was all about).
It was an eye-opening post for me to read, and then to continue reading as Hypatian has shared her struggles and changes and successes with us since then.
There've been times where I was on the side of the shift where I thought "wtf? why all this brouhaha about trans and cis?" and so on, but rather than going with the human instinct to just write it off as a concern for "those people", I've really put an effort into questioning my perceptions and attitudes.
So the short version is, I've shifted to the side of embracing this cultural change over time. And it never would have happened were it not for threads like this one, where we had conversations both for and against the cultural shift. Yes, the pressure is growing to get those who stand on the "old" side to move over to the "new" side, and that's natural. It's much like the shift from demonizing gay marriage to embracing it as a culture. Or demonizing atheists to embracing them as a part of our culture. Or muslims. Or minority ethnic groups. Etc. It's tough to make the shift from the way things were to the way they should be.
Who is being demonized? Can you link to that?
I know these things matter, but we're talking about a huge shift in consciousness. Demonizing people who are trying to make the change or willing to listen, but aren't quite 100% there doesn't seem very productive.
I know you feel this way, but I honestly don't believe that anyone intends to make you feel demonized. You're a smart, awesome, caring person, and I have tons of respect for you. I may have made the shift, and while you haven't quite shifted yet, it's apparent you're putting a lot of thought and care into it, and I think in the long run you will. But unfortunately when you're still on the other side of that gap, it feels like you're being put upon.
I hate that you feel that way, but I also hope that you'll be able to embrace the shift in consciousness sooner than later.
He doesn't really understand, but he doesn't need to in order to show that basic respect.
And that's all it really comes down to. Is it wrong to call Manning by her legal name? Technically, no. You're not wrong.
It generally seems like there is a lot of "Please" and "Thank you" in posts seeking alteration in pronoun usage, which I guess makes this the politest demonization ever.
Anyway, if I may, why the use of *? And if, as I suspect, it's just shorthand, why the shorthand?
Anyway, if I may, why the use of *? And if, as I suspect, it's just shorthand, why the shorthand?
I've actually been wondering that too, I started using the * because Hypatian was, but I just haven't gotten around to researching it.
SpacePPoliceman wrote:Anyway, if I may, why the use of *? And if, as I suspect, it's just shorthand, why the shorthand?
I've actually been wondering that too, I started using the * because Hypatian was, but I just haven't gotten around to researching it. :D
If the answer turns out to be "to allow for both the roots -gendered and -sexual," which just occurred to me, can I win a cookie?
I don't know what side I am on, so I will say I am on both sides. I have a question, if you came to me and called me Kazar and I corrected you and told you that I prefer the name Thorp, would you refuse? I believe that most people, and even everyone here would respect my wishes. Does the gender of the name really matter? I know girls that are named Sam or Chris. Sure they are short for girl names, but I still call them by what they call themselves.
Regarding the person of this discussion, while I don't know much about the case itself (I must be living in a hole), since discussions about Manning are in a legal context (the crime committed), shouldn't the legal name be used?
I don't know what side I am on, so I will say I am on both sides. I have a question, if you came to me and called me Kazar and I corrected you and told you that I prefer the name Thorp, would you refuse? I believe that most people, and even everyone here would respect my wishes. Does the gender of the name really matter? I know girls that are named Sam or Chris. Sure they are short for girl names, but I still call them by what they call themselves.
Regarding the person of this discussion, while I don't know much about the case itself (I must be living in a hole), since discussions about Manning are in a legal context (the crime committed), shouldn't the legal name be used?
Her name is not the crux of any legal issue she is facing... so why does it matter? Scooter is not Scooter Libby's legal name either... but no one cared then.
Does it make me a dick to say that I find the term "cis" to be, I don't know...disturbing and/or mildly offensive? I'm simply male. Others can qualify their gender identity, but for me, I'm just a guy.
Hypatian, I think I understand now where our views haven't met. I look at Manning and see an individual. My references to Manning (for I don't have interaction), to me, are simply between Manning and myself, and are contextual to the way I came to know about Manning. As I don't know or care about Manning, I tend to have very little respect of her wishes. As you may have gathered, I'm not a hugely empathetic person.
I'm guessing for you it is reinforcement of the struggles you and others have gone through in finding, accepting, and seeking acceptance for your true gender (apologize if this all comes out awkwardly).
I just want you to know I never intended any offense to you or anyone else. I just don't quite see eye to eye on the name thing for Manning. But I think I understand where you are coming from a little better. Thank you for your perspective.
(And that's where the procedure I've mentioned that's used at some health clinics comes from: The legal name needs to be recorded for insurance purposes and ID and the like, but the preferred form of address is included separately so that the patient may be referred to respectfully in a situation where everyone feels especially vulnerable. And that's what makes it so upsetting when medical professionals don't respect that.)
As a point of clarification (which may already be accounted in the quoted post in question), there are specific times when medical professionals are required to refer to a person by their legal name, and to elicit a response confirming the identity. This is done to reduce (optimistically, to eliminate) the instances of the wrong people getting their foot amputated. Outside that, nurses at least get taught things like therapeutic communication - basically that word choices matter. It goes against that treatment principle to insist on calling people things that upset them.
I'm having a little trouble grasping the offensiveness of "cis" in the context of gender discussions. Does it have a historically negative association? My Google searches just brought up a bunch of blog grumblings with horrid comment sections.
I'm having a little trouble grasping the offensiveness of "cis" in the context of gender discussions. Does it have a historically negative association? My Google searches just brought up a bunch of blog grumblings with horrid comment sections.
Folks who bristle at the use of cis probably do so because they are often going to first hear/read it in the context of cis privilege and/or cissexism and kneejerk defensiveness their way into 'What the f*ck? I'm not prejudiced/oppressing people etc.'
Doesn't make it right of course, but from what I've seen, it's generally why.
Historically, it's used to describe types of isometry and in geography (cis/trans-alpine). Which could have harrowing associations for specific people, I guess, but I don't think there's anything generally speaking.
It sucks when someone treats you like you're not normal.
It sucks when someone treats you like you're not normal.
Isn't that rather the point?
SixteenBlue wrote:It sucks when someone treats you like you're not normal.
Isn't that rather the point?
Yes it is.
It sucks when someone treats you like you're not normal.
It sort of reminds me of the people losing their sh*t at the last census that less than half the country is white, or to see a biracial couple on a Cheerios commercial.
I think a lot of people spend a lot of time obsessing over some horrendous amalgamated average for people; some lowest common denominator of America or humanity.
I kind of miss the melting pot in this world/country where white anglo saxon males like to think that they are the default setting to life. And that diversity in a country and in their lives is a threat. Their little WASP-y fort is the threat.
Oh you are in the process of therapies and possibly surgeries to give you the female or male body that is more in line with your self image? That sounds fascinating. Tell me more law abiding, tax paying, citizen with feelings and rights just like myself. Because I am not insane and do no assume that merely because you exhibit some trait I may find initially peculiar that you seek to steal my kidneys, kidnap my children, or perform some non-consensual act upon my person to great physical peril.
I'm looking for a good mouth feel when I talk about gender is what I'm saying.
That what ou said.
bombsfall wrote:I'm looking for a good mouth feel when I talk about gender is what I'm saying.
That what ou said.
Gotta give it up for that. Eminently chuckle-worthy.
If I have an issue with *cis* is that is just sounds blech. {...} Or cistern.
Cisterns usually hold precious, refreshing rainwater. They're great.
As a term, as a cis, "cis" gets a shrug and a Sure, Ok. "Cissy," though? Them's fighting words.
kiss-male
now we're getting somewhere
*edit* SMOOOCH
See? It's cismet.
Pages