You entirely missed the point.

I am not questioning whether someone WOULD have transitioned if it was available to them.

I am SAYING a person you saying that " ...they were always the gender they are, even if living as another gender before..." does not then work as you are saying they were always a woman but playing men sports. You are saying we should recognize that a woman at age 20 won a medal in a mens sport.

You can see why that would neither make sense to assume nor to say and would instantly need to be corrected for clarity the instant after you said it, right?

Same way I think Elton John was gay even when he was married to a woman.

I don't know about this person's story but it's fairly typical for trans people of to have been in the closet for whatever reasons. Most likely they'd always had this in their heads, always felt it, but it was only later that they came out about it and then transitioned.

It doesn't cause me any trouble at all to say that a woman won a men's event. Good for her.

I totally disagree with the last sentence.

If that is ok then for all women who transitioned to men, who may have set records in womens sport you see it is as fine to refer to them as Men winning and setting records in womens sport?

To me that is just super confusing and silly. And to me it is almost suggesting you guys assume their is shame or something to be denied in that point in time identity. That to even acknowledge a prior identity is somehow offside.

I simply do not agree with a prima facie position that it is defacto wrong but as uke says above 'he would correct himself if/when he hears from the person based on their preference'.


That is an admission by uke that people are not a monolith. That individuals might have different ways to describe themselves and their personal journey. Some may be proud of their current and past identity and refer to them as such.

So no, I don't accept anyone who, will ASSUME what they want now but correct later while lecturing others they are WRONG as if this is set in stone and not opinion while he ooboo's.

My statement where I talk about 'HER journey' and in that period of time when 'in Men's sport his younger self medaled' because at that point in time he was a CIS male competing as a CIS male in a CIS Male sport, is not a statement that needs to be ooboo'd because someone thinks their opinion has to be the only one.

We spoke about this issue up thread. About the woke Olympics and how the very SECOND someone grasps the most woke position they get offended by and start lecturing those who may adapt one minute later.

So how will it be possible for you to ever learn anything? Any time someone gives you a correction, even if done gently and in good faith, you call it "lecturing" and "OOBOOing" so you can ignore it. You leave yourself no room for growth. Sad.

Why would it be confusing to think that a woman was in a men's event?

I can follow the idea that your sex/gender might determine which event you should be in, but I don't think the inverse (that the event you competed in determines your sex/gender) makes even a little bit of sense.

If someone comes out as trans then it's pretty damn likely they were always trans and we simply didn't know about it. That's perfectly analogous to the idea that even though Elton John did a very heterosexual thing like marry a woman that he was always gay. And I think you know it would be weird for someone to say "Back when Elton John was straight" or "Well he was straight then because he married a woman". Elton John was in the closet. Equally, I assume this woman was in the closet for a long time and was always a woman.

None of that is confusing. It's elegantly simple.

As to your use of language, the thrust of it really is that right now this person is saying they're a woman. And so when you refer to her right now, even if you're talking about the past, the pronouns are for the woman today. That's not complicated either. And it doesn't need to be a big deal. You could very easily just refer to her as a her or a she and be done with this sidetrack. You're more than intelligent enough to handle it. I believe in you.

You really made this sound like you had managed to find a single example on the internet of someone using the highly unconventionl pronoun choice you used but then you.......never posted it? Is the issue that every article you read used the correct pronouns just like the one you did post and just like I told you?

This is a bad argument. There is a basic, standard convention for how to use gendered pronouns to refer to trans people. The sense in which you are wrong is that you are violating that convention. However, it is always up to individuals to choose their pronouns, some might wish for they/them or xe/xem or several other options. So I leave open the possibility - although I've never seen it - that there is a trans person out there who would prefer people to refer to them by their past gender identity, as in someone who doesn't like the convention for some reason. The world is big, it probably exists. But that still makes you wrong, as you would have still violated the convention without knowing there was any reason to do so. That is why when someone writes and article or posts in a public forum they should adopt the basic convention unless we know otherwise.

This is a minor point but you use admitted a lot, as if you managed to succeed at making me admit something. Nope. I informed you about this. It doesn't detract from my position one iota, and you did nothing to get me to say it.

That's good to hear. I was wondering if the spurious and frequent accusations of lying was because Cuepee was particularly animated about this specific topic of trans issues for some reason, but it appears to be a systemic flaw in his posting.

I really don't get this. Cuepee earlier accused me of wanting a flame war about this. But it is hard to imagine why it should be anything more than a two post quick back and forth. He made a mistake, which is fine. He was informed of the correct answer. Why not just accept it and move on?

Perhaps this will be helpful: Cuepee which of the following is the standard way to say it:

1) Elliot Page was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Actress in 2008 for his performance in Juno.
2) Ellen Page was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Actress in 2008 for her performance in Juno.
3) Elliot Page was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Actress in 2008 for her performance in Juno.
4) Ellen Page was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Actress in 2008 for his performance in Juno.

Simply provide me some proof that this is not merely your subjective interpretation of right v wrong, appropriate v inappropriate that you will not correct, as uke admits, the second he meets a trans person, gender fluid person, who feels differently.

As I say this sincerely, that there tends to be this 'my woke position is the ONLY correct one' type tendency to treating the trans community as a monolith with only one opinion and acceptable approach like this is a matter of settled fact and not opinion.

So quote something, anything (public health? other?) that says you guys got this nailed and are not to be questioned or doubted.

I totally disagree.

A statement of 'that man won the woman's 100 meter race' would be very confusing to many without any other qualifiers or explanations.

I do have a quote that shows just that.

But if you are going to hand wave it away then I won't post it.

If you acknowledge FIRST that an example proves me right and you wrong, since that is the threshold you are trying to establish against me ('hey look I can quote something from an article thus you got owned, lol') then you need to accept the same against you.

Or accept you spamming garbage that even you would not accept.

There is an established convention at this point for this situation. I believe that uke is describing the convention correctly, although I haven't consulted a style manual.

But the convention is a nuanced point and I'm not convinced that getting this sort of thing correct in every instance is a reliable sign of moral superiority or clear thinking re transgender athletes.

On the actual issue, as I've said, I think potential advantages for transgender athletes will rarely be an issue at the lower levels of sport. But I can come up with edge cases at the very highest levels where I think it would be an issue, such as my Ruby Gobert example. And I guess I agree with cuepee that those edge cases are unlikely to be helpful either to women's sports generally or transgender athletes specifically.

But I don't see an easy solution.

Trying making a point without this type of lecturing condescension and perhaps it will be received better.

Sure. First google result:
Second google result:
Can you do the rest of the googling yourself?

TONE POLICE ALERT TONE POLICE ALERT TONE POLICE ALERT


Think about terrible this looks for you. You are saying you didn't admit your basic mistake and move on and instead did post after post after post stubborningly digging in on your mistake because.......I was too condescending? Grow up.

Oh definitely do post your quote!!!! Come now, stop playing silly games.

As I told you before, a single counterexample won't disprove the existence of a convention, but it would be evidence against the strength of that convention. So post your quote and lets see what it says.

I would love to see how or where these get accepted and how the community deals with those individuals who for instance embrace their past identity and do want to see it referenced ('I was a proud cis male and a 'him' back then and "I am a proud trans and 'her', today') and if that person is told 'you are wrong'?

I say that earnestly as what i see is a lot of 'assuming' based on a uniform or singular identity for the group, which tends to refuse any such thing.

But more generally, so lets say 'ok, this has been accepted somehow on behalf of the community as the uniform view and response for the group', how can someone learning about this topic "be better than this" until they learn what is the acceptable language?

This is a fundamental and important question as nothing in this area is innate. It is all learned and all learned in a point of time specific to each individual and yet there is an assumption and accusation that others need to "be better" if they are not there yet.

How does that get addressed? Is this the political correct speech Olympics with only the gold medal person who uses the term FIRST being the one in the right, and everyone is on a gradient of needing to "be better" if they learn the day or week after?

And here you are with your default for bad behaviour. Quite the hilarious M.O.

you cry AGAIN about tone policing.

Define why you take a stance up front and engage someone as "WRONG" because you think you learned the correct language before someone else?

Explain why in your first engagement you have to seek wins and label them as wrong. And were you wrong, the day before you learned it?

As a Professor (flol, so sad if true) is this your approach to 'teaching' or exposing people to knew concepts. To start with ridicule and then get into guffawing about them tone policing you if they call out your bad behaviour.

I will tell you, but I doubt you will take anything from it, that it is your way of addressing things that drives many people who are trying to accommodate away. The idea that even as they try to gently engage the topic and misuse of terms is 'wrong' and they 'need to be better'.

I feel like you're easily confused. You seem to be implying that you're incapable of processing the idea that a man could enter a women's event and vice versa. It's no different to walking into the wrong bathroom. You don't change gender in a poof of smoke on entry. You just go "Oh, I'm a man in the women's room, I guess I'll try the other door".

Elton John was married to a woman, but it doesn't confuse me to think "He was always gay, he was just in the closet". I don't have to parse it out and go "He was straight on his wedding day, but probably gay when he got divorced, then maybe straight for a while in between before going gay again". I can just hazard a guess and say he was always gay.

I recommend avoiding pantomimes. The lead man is traditionally played by a woman and the Dame is played by a man. It's not plot dense exactly but I feel like that would blow your mind.

NO. You claimed up thread that your single quoted owned me.

So admit a single quote owns you first, that you are WRONG on this topic, as I don't play the hand waving game of providing info for anyone requesting that.

This is a bar YOU established where single quotes are proof and validation.

This is almost tautological. You were "wrong" because you didn't know the "correct language". It is fine if you just learned that ITT. I'm glad you learned it. However, the issue was that you stubbornly refused to accept that you were wrong and it seems even now are STILL pushing back at being wrong.

You want me to explain what an internet forum is? Stop being such a delicate snowflake that someone on the internet was the tiniest bit condescending to you when you were wrong. You didn't know. Move on.

Why do you keep bringing up my profession? Weird. And no, the way I act in a classroom with hundreds of students and the way I act on an anonymous internet forum are not the same.

I'm very sorry me being condescending when I informed you that you were wrong led to you digging in your heels for dozens of posts and refusing to admit you were wrong. That says MUCH more about you than about me though.

I said only that I think uke is correct about the convention from the standpoint of, say, an editorial board. How stylistic conventions come into existence is a question for the linguists. I assume that it is largely a matter of following the cues proposed by advocates, but I don't know that for certain.

Lol. I never said a single quote proved the existence of a convention. I just laughed at how you were sure you were right but the very article you quoted used it the opposite of how you used it.

I love this "I have evidence to support my case but refuse to post it unless uke jumps through every hoop of mine" approach. Just post the damned quote, if you actually have one.

This sort of article is what makes me assume that uke is correct about the convention.

https://time.com/5947032/elliot-page/

Right but how can you "follow" if you are expected to know in advance what is correct?

Not trying to be too difficult here but there is an assumption that 'right' or 'wrong' is not a function of learning. You are to be declared wrong by those already in the know and told 'to do better' which is a comment suggesting you did some wrong, or caused some grievance prior.

How can that work in a dynamic language environment?

Does not everyone only learn something the moment they learn it?

(it might sound rhetorical but clearly there is an expectation that 'better' is expected of everyone. So what does 'better' mean?)