In the context of talking to someone who doesn't care then I guess language doesn't really matter. An open forum like this where you don't know who might be reading that it's better to use language that shows an acceptance and respect for the people in question.

I gave you reasons why I don't think "biological man" makes sense. If "man" is something socially constructed and not really a biological property then the term "biological man" is meaningless in that sense. And it carries the implication that trans men aren't really men if they don't have the biology, which is obviously something I disagree with. If you disagree too then you should probably not use the term because you're actually making yourself less clear by carrying that implication. Another sense would be if there is a biological basis for being trans then trans men are "biological men", and so you're including the group you were trying to exclude with your description. And it's doing this when we already have the simple term "male" which we all more or less understand.

I'm not really sure if there are any other ways in which a term can be "wrong" other than this kind of pragmatic consideration so I guess I don't know what you're after if that doesn't cover it.

Right and i gave you an example where it makes perfect sense.

Again my issue was seeing uke acting sanctimonious in this thread in his belief he is 'dunking' on people who are not up on the latest terminology.

When I first used biological man to distinguish from trans woman it is because we need to distinguish. You can do that via cis or biological and they both achieve the same thing and ARE necessary in that context. You might have a preference but you cannot say one is wrong and the other right.

If we are referring to an individual then you use what they ask you to but in general either is appropriate.

As you point out only 'man' or 'woman' is appropriate and makes sense. No need of cis, trans, or biological at all. They are all men or women.

But to DISTINGUISH in a discussion where the descriptor is needed there is nothing wrong with using biological sex instead of gender to draw a descriptive line.

There are no POOBO's to be acting on behalf of.

You can even see in all of uke's follow up the 'dunking' game he thinks he is playing as if someone it is embarrassing to not be up on the latest language and he is scoring gotcha's. He is almost dancing in his faux glee. All the while not realizing he is proving my exact point.

And just to be absolutely clear... 'what people'?

Who are you assuming is offended or feels disrespected if they are referred to as biologically male instead of cis male?

It's not the people being referred to as biologically male who are likely to be offended, it's the inference that trans-men are not really men that is likely to cause offence to trans-men. Cis is a deliberately neutral prefix in that it is purely the opposite of trans, in much the same way **** and hetero are opposites. Biological carries an implication that the opposite would be non-biological, which in the context of a person's identity could be considered degrading/dehumanising.

Edit: I'm sure you can work out what got censored there.

I don't think it did make sense in your example, and I've said why. If by "biological man" you mean someone assigned male at birth then "biological man" is a really clunky way of saying "born male" that for one jumbles sex and gender in a confusing manner, and for two doesn't exclude trans women which is one of the categories you're trying to make distinct.

I mean, I don't know if I'd ever talk about a word being "right" or "wrong" in any sense other than the pragmatic, but words have connotations within a language and I think your terms carry connotations that you probably don't want them to. Words are more or less useful to some end, not right or wrong.

When did I point out "only 'man' or 'woman' is appropriate and makes sense. No need of cis, trans, or biological at all"??? Trans and cis are qualifiers that have a pragmatic use when discussing topics like in this thread or in the sports thread. Then there's a whole lot of contexts where I wouldn't bother with the distinction because it's not relevant. I think trans women and cis women are all equally women, that doesn't mean I'm never going to want or need to distinguish between the two.

Whatever people the terms you're using are referring to. But I never said anything about offence. If I'm talking about trans men and a trans man happens to read my posts I'd like to think whether they agree or disagree they'll see me as a poster who recognises and accepts them. That's a pragmatic consideration I have with my language. And if one of your goals is to have trans men (or any other group you might talk about) feel respected or included in social groups then it should be a consideration for you to. Whether that is a goal of yours is up to you.

So this is clearly an text book POOBO offense.

In speaking to Lozen of someone online who is NOT offended, uke takes offense on behalf of someone else??

But that someone else is not even the person referred to who might be fine with it.

IN this case you are saying we must (or should) change how we refer to ourselves or others who do not care in case a trans person takes offense that you are not using the right pronouns for them?

I ask this seriously, is that not the opposite of what is being asked of others when it comes to how a trans person wants to identify? Just accept it and do it, be accommodating? And here it is 'you are wrong, even with someone who is ok with it as I want you to use my pronouns for them'?

Not that I care much about this topic and again refer to anyone the way they ask but I think there is the potential of a 'bridge too far' when others start saying 'you MUST also do this amongst those who are ok with other identification because the trans person requires it'.

I am the one pointing out only 'man' or 'woman' is all that is appropriate or needed.


it is perfectly fine to call a cis or trans person just a man or woman.

So when you say 'biological' is not necessary to draw distinction, I agree. I am just pointing out Cis or trans is not necessary either.

And while I might agree with you that cis might be 'better' or more 'descriptive' to SOME people, I would guess that for most of my friends, who are not into social media or chat forums and not 'UP' on this topic 'cis' and other terms would be far less clear to them and would have to be explained.

Not that there is anything wrong with explaining and i would not be 'dunking' on them or saying it was 'sad' they are not up to speed on this.

I am just saying that to draw a quick distinction between two athletes standing on the field saying 'the one on the left is a biological female and the one on the right is a transfemale' would instantly convey to them what you were referring to in a way that would likely not confuse anyone.

it is a good use of descriptive language that exactly identifies the difference.

I see this point as potentially getting to that 'bridge too far' point.

Again I agree with the premise and practice and addressing people how they want to be addressed.

But this almost seems to be saying that if Lozen and I are chatting and he is fine being identified as biologically male in a discussion to distinguish him from a transmale on the field of play that you are saying, he and I should change our terms because the trans person might be offended by the pronouns we prefer or how we wish to address one another.

that goes well beyond the initial premise and call for 'tolerance' and 'acceptance' and the logic that was used to justify it rightly of 'why not accept how they want to identify'.

It seems to now be extending to 'oh and you will identify as I say you should and if the language changes more you will change with it and address it properly'.

Do you see any issue with this extension?

I can't say I've ever been tone policed more than Cuepee's hissy fit here that I dared to inform him the opposite of a trans is cis, not "biowomen".

DEFUND THE PRONOUN POLICE!

And you wonder why you get temp bans. You're such a backwards pleb

Aren't you the guy whose told me about four times that you're done engaging me?

I get a temp ban about once every six months. I need a break from this place sometimes.

You're mistaking comments for engaging

I really sympathize for parents in this dilemma. You just want what is best for your child's future physically and psychologically.

Since you answered a question of mine directed specifically to you, you are obviously engaging me. Which I think is just peachy.

I don't think necessity comes into it. My objections to the terms "biological man" and "biological male" aren't that it's unnecessary. It's that they conflate terms, don't properly delineate the things you want to delineate, or are redundant. They carry connotations about how you consider the topic that I suspect you don't want to imply.

"Transfemale" is unclear to me. Is that someone assigned female at birth who is trans or is that a trans person who would like to be female? It seems more confusing not less. I'm sure people can intuit what you mean, and maybe if you knew nothing about the topic it would seem obvious, but it doesn't "exactly identify the difference". It's less clear than other ways you could say it. You could say "that woman is transgender and that woman isn't". You could just say "female" instead of "biologically female".

It passes from a point of people will generally understand your meaning, it's "worse" from any other point of language. Your terms are less clear the more informed you are on the topic, it conflates sex and gender, it has redundancy, and it's less respectful. It's all round better to avoid it from a purely pragmatic perspective.


If you and Lozen are chatting in private then no one knows what language you use and this isn't an issue. If you and Lozen are chatting in a "politics and society" forum about trans issues where anyone can read it then I think it makes sense for other posters to point out that your terminology belies either a carelessness or an ignorance about the topic. When you call Lozen a "transmale" do you mean he was assigned male at birth but now identifies as trans, or do you simply mean he's male? Your use of the qualifier "trans" doesn't make sense there.

Again, I didn't say anything about offending anyone. I said that I want my language to be respectful and inclusive to trans people. I want to show a level of understanding and acceptance. And I hope I can motivate others like you to want the same. It's the same way I would speak about topics like race, ethnicity, mental health issues, anything like that. Not because I'm worried someone will be "offended", I don't much care about "offence" in the modern internet sense of the word. But I do think language matters. How we speak about things, how we frame issues, these things have social connotations, and the way we go about it matters. And sometimes I'll slip up, and someone will correct me, and that's fine, that's all part of the discussion. What I won't do is see it as a "bridge too far" to use language that's more precise, more respectful, and shows a deeper understanding of the subject at hand.

OK i am not even sure where you are going with this.

Are you suggesting here that saying transmale or transfemale are problematic because that is how many trans people refer to themselves?


Point 2, cis man imparts no knowledge or clarity that biological man does not in my scenario.

If Lozen and I are referencing two people we can see in the distance and I say the one on the left is the trans male and the one on the right the biological male you have all the info you need. Saying Cis male instead imparts nothing you do not know as all cis says is his gender agrees with his biology.

If my biological man's gender does not agree with this biology, if he saw him self as a transwoman, then I would call him that or by whatever he identified as. So the term bioloigcal man by default assumes that. So while you may prefer cis man, that is solely preference.



This seems wholly unaccommodating and unreasonable.

Yes absolutely change and accommodate your language on how you identify another to be nice, inclusive, etc and a good neighbour.

No, to demanding or expecting that OTHERS change how they identify THEMSELVES because OTHERS do not want to accommodate or leave them space to define themselves.

Can you not see you are using backwards rationalization to do (or ask) for the very thing you would be critical of a person not willing to call a trans person, 'trans' for but to a WORSE degree?

This is not even a person saying 'I don't recognize how you identify and won't give you that space or courtesy' it is 'wrong' to expect me to call YOU 'trans', which I think would be quite incentive.

This is a person saying "I don't recognize your right (or see it as right) for YOU to identify as you want and won't give you that space or courtesy', it is 'wrong' for you not to change how you identify and conform to my opinion and view.

This is, what i see as a bridge too far as it seems to have the same foundational justification those who refuse to use 'trans' would say but to even a worse degree where you are trying to limit how THEY identify and not just how you recognize them.

I have no clue what cis means . In an earlier post you say its easy to be correct in all the pronouns.
Yesterday I saw a tweet that used transhets and allicshets and had no clue what they meant
In this tweet the person is no longer allowed to use the word straight.
Nancy Pelosi now says you can not use brother and sister and the correct terminology is siblings and mother and father should be parents.

I'm saying that "trans male" and "trans female" could refer to more than one thing. A trans woman might have been assigned male at birth, so you could say she's trans and a male, so is a trans woman also a "trans male"? Or by "trans male" do you mean someone assigned female at birth but wants to be a male? Or by "trans male" are you conflating sex with gender? It's not clear to me at all how the term "trans male" is supposed to be read or how it meshes with an understanding of identity vs. biological sex.

Then when you say "biological man", my question is if there's some biological basis for a person assigned female at birth being trans, well then isn't he a "biological man"? Or by "biological man" or you implying that a trans man isn't really a man? I think trans men are men just as much as cis men. It seems like this is just another conflation of sex and gender in a confusing way.

I can see how it might work in general parlance for you, but it doesn't really stack up.

Well this is all I'm getting at. A kind of language that both achieves this whilst also being clear and accurate in delineating the groups we want to talk about. I think trans and cis do this pretty well whereas terms like "biological man", "transmale", and "biowoman" have the opposite effect.

I don't think I ever demanded anyone change how they identify themselves. I didn't even demand you change your terminology. Actually, I didn't even say you were "right" or "wrong" about your terminology. What I said is that there's pragmatic reasons to use my terms, including avoiding implying things that I don't think you believe.

If I were to comment on what I've seen of your character, I'd say that you're obviously generally quite progressive (given your posts on CRT and policing) and I'd guess you're generally quite understanding of the need to show respect when talking about certain groups. Which is why I find it somewhat surprising you're digging your heels in here. What I think is going on here is that Uke pissed you off in the way he addressed your language and now you don't want to give ground to me.

I fully understand why people get angry about "wokescolds" looking for an opportunity to dunk on someone, but that's not what I've done. I remember getting shocked looks and a telling off in my uni days for using the word "coloured" (which, as lends sympathy to your narrative, only the black person wasn't bothered by). Still, I don't use that word any more. All I've done is calmly give you the reasons for why the terms "trans" and "cis" are preferred. I'm not judging you harshly or impugning your character for not using the "right" words, I'm just informing you of why they might be seen as objectionable. Any of this stuff about me criticising you as a person, attacking how you identify, trying to dunk on you, is you trying to pin an argument with someone else on me.

Giving children hormone blockers is imo very, very problematic. If I or anyone had to make that decision for my children, it would be one of the toughest decisions to make as a parent. Given that a great numer of people is regretting the decision at some point and its not reversible, I would advocate to not have a decision made for the child until it is of legal age to make own decisions. There is a ton of individuals all over the internet who regret their decision of gender transformation. I also looked of numbers of suicides made by transgenders, they are much higher than average population.


Here are some articles on this issue. There is some pros and cons.
Con blockers: Possible risks of hormone blockers involve future fertilty. https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-...s/art-20459075
https://pharma.nridigital.com/pharma...ender_children

"The 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey claims that 11% of female respondents regret surgery enough to change back to their original sex. Transgender men had a reversion rate of 4%. But considering that transgender surgery can range from $7,000 to well over $50,000, depending on the sex and extent, is that a surprise? There are those who consider themselves transgender but may not have surgery, just as there are those who may have some treatment (e.g., hormones or partial surgery) but not complete the process.

In this survey alone, roughly 4,000 people were unhappy with the fact that they changed their God-given sex. ThatÂ’s not insignificant. To understand the bigger picture, letÂ’s explain the medical basis of the transgender mentality. The topic is very complex: many who are transgender decide to detransition back to their biological gender. Those are numbers that arenÂ’t even covered in this article."
https://www.hli.org/resources/what-p...egret-surgery/


"A trans activist woman who detransitioned in 2018 has sparked controversy by claiming that many people who have gender reassignment regret the decision and want to return to their original sex."
https://www.news-medical.net/news/20...-activist.aspx

I recall a survey that showed that White Democrats (maybe it was White Liberals) were more offended by the team name Washington Redskins than actual Native Americans.

As Cuepee alluded to earlier, being offended on behalf of other people (who themselves may or may not be offended themselves) is in some circles considered a high virtue.

Fair enough. Cis is the opposite of trans, i.e. it means someone whose gender is the same as their birth sex. So I am a cis male because I both identify as male and was born with male genitalia. This word IS part of the standard lexicon I think people in 2021 should familiarize themselves with, and is common when reading anything to do with trans issues.


In contrast to "cis", there certainly is extra verbiage that you are much less likely to know if not in the community. I didn't know what allicshets meant, for instance, and I think that's fine. My view here is we all have a responsibility to know the basics, but every part of the lgbt twitter lexicon certainly isn't required.

Question: did you see this tweet because you followed a trans person, or because you followed conservatives who are ridiculing this trans person?



I suspect you are getting caught up in right wing twitter. I think what you are referring to is a rules change in one document in the house that is now framed with more inclusive language. Right wing twitter went on a whole thing that this meant you couldn't say father or brother and that is absolutely false (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...nt/4175388001/). Indeed, as many families don't have one mother and one father, it does make sense when talking about families in general to use parents. That doesn't mean you can't refer to someone as a father if you know their gender!

Pedro the Political awareness Penguin

Ah. Yes, when you follow Facebook pages that collect the most outrageous Twitter posts for public mockery, you are likely to get a, how to put it, non-representative sample.

There simply is no denying that there is a pretty significant segment of society that thinks the day after they learn the newest update to the terminology or whatever else is politically correct, that those who have not learned yet are 'bad' or to be 'dunked on.

There is no acceptance that most average people, who ARE good willed and natured might not have exposure to these things might not know and that is OK. There is an implied or expected obligation that they keep up to date and make this a priority.

By virtue of participating in forums like this I am far more woke (and happily so) then most of my peer group and I don't know those terms. I did not know that it was 'cis' and not 'CIS' and those more woke revel in 'dunking' and going into meme mocked territory of 'your shook' to prove how woke and superior they are. All the while not realizing they are only highlighting themselves as the fool.

I feel no embarrassment, shame or other in not being as woke as the next guy as no one (literarily no one) knows these things until they exposed to them and that will be different times for EVERYONE.

So this band of people who think it is their job to mock others due to them getting woke first are clowns whether they can see it or not as they are highlighting their own deficiency when they think they are 'dunking' on others.