On that we agree. On the last forum i was on that was considered 'Empty Posting' and was not allowed and no one does it more than laggy.

I certainly agree that I can stop with my drive-by one liners. But I choose not to stop unless instructed to do so by a Moderator.

Have a great day, bud!

Addendum: I'll let you two continue your discussion without my zero-content interference.

I gladly accept all accolades.

Having said that, I shan't any longer interfere with your scintillating dialogue with uke.

It is indeed quite clear you are either unable or unwilling to address the criticisms of your opinion. But that isn't why the conversation continues. As much as you like to say "agree to disagree", you don't do a good job practicing what you preach because instead of moving on you instead pulled - once again - this card:

Now given your most recent post, I actually think this is a genuine misunderstanding. As in, I think if you address the most recent interchange, there is a real shot you will recognize that no, no, I wasn't lying.

The source of the alleged lie was I paraphrased you as follows:
To me, it was completely and utterly obvious that you were stating you opinion it is wrong - as opposed to "factually wrong" - and in my paraphrase I similarly believe it is obvious that I am repeating your opinion it is wrong - not presenting it as "factually wrong" . However, it appears you believed I was doing the opposite:

Since you now know that I fully agree with you that you were stating your opinion and never thought otherwise, are you able to retract your accusations that I was lying?

Yes, yes hardcore criticism of this extreme opinion that my view is that punitive damges should be allowed but rare. The horror.

Oh the horror. Any opinion but 'frequent' punitive damages is just not acceptable.

Cuepee, you repeatedly called me a dishonest liar. I believe I just explained pretty clearly how that stemmed from a genuine misunderstanding on your part. Could you please take a moment to read and reflect on the prior post?

My understanding is you wanted to “agree to disagree” on the position you just repeated and reemphazied. If you want to continue that discussion, I’m happy to explain my criticism of it again and give you an opportunity to meaningfully address that criticism. But if you genuinely believe I was lying in a situation I genuinely wasn’t, there seems little point in you repeating that position without addressing either the lying or addressing my critique of the position at all.

A simple apology for calling me a liar when I wasn’t would go a long way to resetting to a productive conversation.

epistemology is a social construct

https://www.economist.com/the-econom...-controversial

https://www.economist.com/by-invitat...t-the-olympics

https://www.economist.com/by-invitat...ans-to-compete

Having not paid attention to this prior I am curious how people are taking these statements by these individuals who otherwise would tell another person 'you are wrong to call them him' only to be corrected by the lesbian person after that in fact 'you are the one wrong?'

It will be challenging but Society needs to find a better way to balance these issues and I think, if not in this games then for sure, before the next this will be come to a head. The science of this will not be able to be buried or ignored for long.

Why are transgender Olympians proving so controversial?
The science suggests males retain an advantage over females, no matter how they identify

----------

Chelsea Mitchell on the unfairness of trans women at the Olympics
Transgender women have advantages that make competition against females inequitable, says an American collegiate runner

------------

Veronica Ivy on why it is right for trans Olympians to compete
Sport is a human right and trans women are women in the ways that matter, says a trans cycling champion

I default to him for a man, he for a woman, and they for an unknown.

I have no idea how some random tik tok contradicts that by saying "I'm a lesbian and I prefer he/him".

It speaks to 'others' assuming their gender and so confident in doing so that they would lecture others who may have got it right, that they are wrong, until they themselves (the lecturer) get corrected.

it speaks to having humility to not assume or to not be an ooboo so quickly on this topic as if you know and hold the sacred truth when in fact, as the person says 'its complicated' and thus assumptions may not be what you think. Or maybe not complicated and thus we should always all just be open to letting the individual correct you when you are wrong without taking on a stance of "I am always right until proven wrong.'

You're still the only one talking about being offended.

I don't know what it is you think this video says I'm wrong about. If someone tells me he wants to be referred to as he/him then that's what I'll do. That's what I've always said I'd do. It doesn't bother me if he's a lesbian.

Humility is all I am saying. You can consider or you don't have to.

You only need look back at the assumptions and lecturing I faced over referring to a persons very specific 'Point in Time' past accomplishments when he competed as a cis male and set records as 'his accomplishments at that time' and see how people who do not know how the specific person views them but they assume they must be so correct that the other person (me) must be wrong.

And yet here, you can see you simply do not know.

And recognize that my comment was not even a 'guess' about the gender identity TODAY which i think is easier to address. I was speaking about a 'Point in Time' when the person DID compete as a cis male. So the assumptions by 'others' that 'regardless of that we know they did not identify that way' is a far more egregious assumption in terms of how much you are assuming for someone else.

I'm not following you.

I don't see how "This lesbian likes to be referred to as he" contradicts the criticism of you referring to Laurel Hubbard as a man (which you're now doing again). I don't get how it makes me wrong for saying that it's normative to refer to women as she. I don't get how that makes me "offended". And I don't get why it's me that would need humility when I've said I'll refer to people by whatever pronouns they wish.

Humility, to me at least, would be if Laurel Hubbard says "I'd like to be called he" and I said "Okay, I'll do that". Humility is NOT making some convoluted point about a tik tok video trying to insist that you were correct all along for referring to someone entirely different, who we know identifies as a woman, as a man.

You are not following as you do not even try.

If i referred to that lesbian as 'he' on this forum and we did not see 'his' preference you would be telling me I was wrong when I would be right. Do you deny that?

And I am not referring to Laurel Hubbard as a man now, so you are being very purposely dishonest. I am very specifically addressing a Point in Time. A factual Point in Time and only that instance. That instance was at a point in time when as a person named Gavin Hubbard competed as a CIS male in a sporting competition and set records. Yes she transitioned LATER and we are happy to acknowledge that but it was not a 'she' who set the records in the Male division and it would be confusing and wrong to pretend it was a she.

But again, address that point in time distinction and you making assumptions about how the person is to be addressed and telling people they are WRONG in doing so back then is entirely exposed as arrogant and wrong in this instance.

This instance is not even a point in time distinction where things could be cleared up by BOTH of us just listening to Laurel and HER preference and adapting. Today you have someone clearly telling you 'don't assume my gender thinking it will conform with my identity. I can identify with being a lesbian and yet see my gender as a he'.

If that is not as clear cut statement to 'not assume' then you will accept nothing is while pretending you are not telling this person they are wrong.

And if you accept what they say then you should lose your arrogance of jumping to conclusions to tell others they are wrong until the person in question clarifiies.

If you referred to a woman as a he then, yes, I might tell you that's wrong.

If you then showed me a video of that woman saying "I like to be called he" then I'd say "Oh, my mistake". That's what I consider humility to be.

You said "when he competed as a cis male". This is admittedly ambiguous but typically the "he" there is a reference to the person now while describing a past event. Tenses be weird like that. Since you brought up humility though, you could again sidestep all of this by simply referring to Laurel as a she. I also think it's ambiguous as to whether she ever competed as a "cis male" rather than in male events. I went through all this before about how it's fairly reasonable to assume that she identified as trans long before transitioning. She competed in male events, but I wouldn't imply that she was ever cis.

But I'm still not seeing how any of this relates to the tik tok video which you seemed to imply meant I was wrong somehow in saying that I default to him for men, her for women, and they for unknowns, but will use whatever someone wants should they tell me. It seems like all you have again is to accuse me of dishonesty in saying I'm not trying to understand you. Which is another Cuepee bingo for me.

1. Here we go, again.

2. Is it possible to be accidentally dishonest?

And I would hope humility then would prevent you in the future from jumping out in advance to tell people 'you are wrong' when you understand you do not know and will revise your statement after.

You are completely acknowledging that you too are making an assumption prior to you 'admitting you are wrong' and to be so certain that your assumption is the correct one that you tell others they are wrong (when you in fact are) is hubris.

say


To be clear, the only 'he' i used with Laurel was SPECIFIC to that Point in Time instance and i made that clear in subsequent posts as well. The instance being the competition when the records were set as a 'he' in a male competition. Saying 'she won the Mens Gold medal back in 1980' would be very awkward and require extra clarification language, when saying 'back then when he competed as a CIS Male' does not require any clarification since we know we are talking about a Trans female who obviously transitioned from a male prior.

There is no need to hide away from the fact that trans people transition and thus did compete as a 'he' at a point in time.

Sure it is and you are welcome to make that opinion call based on your readings.

Why you think however others have to agree with your opinion call is the 'here we go again' moment for me.

We can both have different interpretations of this person based on our interactions and that is fine.

You coming in to each threat to say 'well that does not agree with my POV so this is a problem' is just silly.

You're acting like it isn't normative to refer to women as she, men as he, and unknowns as they. If you find someone that says they buck the trend then okay, but I'm still going to tell you that if someone transitions and says "I'm a woman" that the standard pronoun is "she". If you present someone to me like in that tik tok video that prefers other than that norm then, fine, makes no odds to me.

You can keep saying it was "specific to that point in time" but I'm going to point out that the referent of the "he" is someone in the present even if the event you're referring to is in the past. You're not referring to someone other than the woman that is Laurel Hubbard, right? That's the referent, a woman.

Personally, I don't think there's anything remotely awkward or confusing about saying "She competed in a men's event". It's not complicated. She's trans and hadn't transitioned at that time. Certainly I'd say that "He competed as a cis male" doesn't capture the context that she's trans so it doesn't save any clarification. Without further context anyone would think you were referring to a man. But you're not referring to a man, you're referring to Laurel Hubbard.

More than that, I've made the point to you that it's a reasonable assumption that when someone comes out as trans that they've been thinking about it for a very long time. The analogy I've repeated that you've never addressed is how weird I think it would be to say "Back when Elton John was straight he got married". Do you think Elton John was ever actually straight or do you think he was in the closet? Same for a trans woman. I suspect the vast majority weren't ever cis. I suspect they were always trans, and so I'll refer to them with a pronoun that reflects that.

This was the last post in the thread, that Cuepee was unable or unwilling to respond to:

A couple posts into a fresh exchange with a different person and let's see where we are at:

Why do you keep accusing everyone of being dishonest? Why can't you offer a simple apology when it is clearly identified that you made a simple mis-interpretation that led to your claims of dishonesty?

You faced "lecturing" because you were wrong. When referring to a trans person's past, the reference is something you are doing today, in the present, and the standard convention is to use the pronouns of the present as well. It is trivial to make completely clear that she was a cis male at the time competing in male events, that is fine, but what isn't fine is to use the wrong pronouns. Thus it is best to use "She competed as a cis male....".

I don't know why you are bringing this up. We covered his extensively already. But just go read any coverage of her, notice how the articles - including the one YOU posted early ITT - always use the female pronouns when describing her past? This issue is settled.

Regularly accusing people who disagree with you as being "dishonest" or "liars" is a common tactic used by narcissists. (A former POTUS comes to mind.)

I'm not saying that Cuepee is a narcissist, but that tactic is in the narcissists playbook.

it is one thing for you to act upon it and quite another for you to lecture and tell someone they are wrong that do not.

If you end up telling Person 1 'you are wrong' in referring to that lesbian and 'he' and then find out from the lesbian that they consider 'he' accurate, and you apologize and adapt and then literally 5 minutes later you tell the same person AGAIN 'they are wrong to refer to the next lesbian they are discussing as he' and AGAIN find it out is you who was wrong BOTH TIMES, you hope you learn some humility and stop lecturing others.

Yes, practice what you know as the norm and yes CORRECT yourself as necessary (as you would do) but let others also correct themselves as necessary and stop telling them they are wrong when you do not know.