And I do not want to rehash that argument. There is no need to going back into that argument as it is not relevant to anything we are saying here.

What IS relevant is that it is an explanation of why I am not playing that same game again. You seem to need to know that or you will not understand why I just won't do it. I won't do it here now and i won't do it in the next thread where you try to pull me down different lanes. THAT is the reason.

If your view is 'I don't care what you learned there, I require you keep doing that anyway and am going to chase you to do it' that just won't end well as I will not.

So you can move on or keep just re-asking and restating and demanding things from me you will not get.

And to uke and gangstaman's ongoing question uke already captured (2 quotes below) my view perfectly which i stand by despite uke thinking it was a gotcha (it is not).

this is the way I would always refer to her in a generalist way...

And for Point in Time specific historical references where the persons records or accomplishments where done as another gender in sports aligned by specific gender I stand by the below as being fine to use for THAT point in time reference...

Are you saying we don't disagree over how to refer to Laurel Hubbard in the past tense? Because I thought we did, but I'm the one who wants to address that disagreement and you're the one who keeps whining about "offence" that nobody's mentioned. I asked you very directly if you'd dropped the pronoun issue or not, and since then rather than just saying "No I haven't" and discussing it or "Yes I have" and moving on, we're doing this merry dance where somehow it's me not wanting to stay on topic.

Again, I'll appeal to the room: does anyone think it's me that's going off on tangents here rather than Cuepee? Anyone?

I don't know what you THINK we disagree over.

I keep restating MY point, as it is what triggered this ongoing and never ending dispute, and you can say if you disagree or not.

I WILL NOT, get drawn in to your issues or assuming what you are getting at as, again, that will then be used to say 'well that is what I was arguing and you disagreed with' when that is not the case.

My position again:

- I have always and would always refer to the person by the known and desired gender pronouns both current and in a generalist reference aspect.

- when speaking to very specific 'Point in Time' events where the gender distinction is necessary I think capturing that specific Point in Time event with the historically correct gender and even name ("...when Bruce Jenner in the 1970's won the gold medal in men's decathlon, he was...") I think it is fine and accurate to denote the history correctly with regards to the specifics.

- I think all people should be willing to listen to the person and correct as necessary (lesbian tells she uses 'he')

- I think it is ooboo'ing and wrong for others to jump to the assumption that others are wrong and to try and correct them, when they in fact do not know, and are just betting they are right more often than they are wrong, when they admit they will correct themselves after (lesbian = 'he').

- that ooboo'ing person should absolutely govern themselves and make the bet on appropriateness for THEMSELVES and good on them if they correct themselves when wrong. They also should have the humility to not lecture others and let them make the same mistake and get corrected if they are wrong as they too might also be right.

I agree with everything you say here but please do not call her a hero for being the first Trans Gender Non Binary to win a medal. When in reality Quinn is no different than Quinn's teammates

Great. So now we go back to the arguments that you've been presented with and apparently consciously refused to read (while claiming I was going off on a different "lane").

Ganstaman has said very similar to me and that is that there, in my view, is no point in time at which Laurel Hubbard was a man or a cis male as you repeatedly referred to. There never was a "he" when it comes to Laurel Hubbard, there was only a woman who entered a men's event.

The idea put to you is that Elton John was once married to a woman, and yet it seems very intuitive to me that there was no point in time in which Elton John was straight (Ganstaman has added a personal experience to this, that he was never straight yet hadn't realised he was gay). To refer to "When Elton John was straight" is nonsensical. No such time existed irrespective of Elton John performatively acting as a heterosexual.

Equally, it is my expectation based on what we know about psychology that Laurel Hubbard was never cis, never a man, only a woman who competed in a men's event.

If it's the case that Laurel Hubbard was always trans then your references to her as having once been cis or once been a man are incoherent. It isn't simpler, it isn't providing clarity, because it's not referring to anything that happened.

In spite of your insistence, it is on these rational grounds that I've been attempting to establish why I think you should use pronouns in the way I've suggested. It is NOT because I'm "offended" or anything like that. Any distractions from this argument I've laid out repeatedly are entirely of your own making. This is not me going off on a tangent, this is me very pointedly disagreeing with you on your second bullet point in the above post.

It's not my place to call them anything given I knew nothing about them until I look up the footy results. I will say that non-binary people receive a lot of criticism (from all sides, actually, although one side a lot more than another) and coming out will have been something Quinn thought long and hard about. It shouldn't be a big deal, and the only way for it not to be a big deal is for people like them to be visible. Outside of Olympic times I doubt the Canadian women's team gets much publicity, but there's a lot of people out there struggling with identity, with their sexuality, their gender, who they are, and I think it's a good thing that there are some public individuals like Quinn for those people to see and think "Oh, it's okay to be this way".

I don't know if that rises to heroic in my view but it's certainly admirable.

Great, but that creates a couple different issues:

- such an definitive assertion by you and Ganstaman as a matter of fact can certainly be backed up with the factual statements to that. And when you provide them, I would adjust (generally) just as you would when the Lesbian tells you to use 'he' despite you assuming it would have been the norm to use 'she'. Please cite the factual basis of your claim here?

- second what Laurel wants and considers appropriate per her identity is fine but that is not the be all and end all for historic reference.

What that means that even if a trans person feels they were, in their heart and beliefs trans before they actually transitioned that DOES NOT mean they competed that way. We can respect the belief while the historical reality was other than.

Thus the records set by Laurel and Kaitlyn were not set in mens sport by Laurel and Kaitlyn as ladies competing in men's sport (but just not declared trans yet). They did in FACT compete at CIS men and that is fact. The desire to have their identity recognized otherwise does not re-write that fact and cannot change it. You would not say 'Kaitlyn Jenner, as a trans women won the men's decathlon Gold medal in the 1970's' and she set records...'

There are numerous sports list sites. Nothing but the Sport Name, The Year Accomplished, The Event classification, and the Top athletes and their records in numerical order. No clarifications or elaborations on those sites. Just a ranking site as a list. It would not be improper to have Bruce Jenner, 1970's, Mens Decathlon, Gold Medal as THAT DID happen.

That generally speaking Kaitlyn should be referred to as her does not re-write that history simply because after the fact she made a choice a transition.

Even a simple name change with no gender change would be used to re-write the history books. They would not scratch out Bruce Jenner and insert Kaitlyn Jenner or Bob Jenner, or Bill Smith (again if all it was, was a name change) in all the history denotations of that Point in Time event. It WAS Bruce Jenner that competed that day. That history is complete and noted for posterity. At best you asterisks beside Bruce Jenner and at the bottom footnotes it says *Bruce Jenner has since transition to Kaitlyn Jenner or changed his name to Bob Smith.

But you do not go in and start changing participant names and gender in all the history and record books as all the log books and corresponding info for that event would not match up.

Changing your identity does not over write historical point in time fact.

I'm curious what is informing your view on this?

It seems to me that had this person not raised it, no one would know and it would not be a visible issue and it is only in making it visible, that it likely draws some fire from very ignorant people.


(I am not questioning their desire to be out, just your view that it is the only way for it 'not to be a big deal'.)

Factual basis for which claim? For the idea that trans people are trans long before they come out? I think that's fairly established from both personal testimony and the field of psychology. I take it that given Gansta is a psychologist and he's echoing similar sentiments that this isn't particularly controversial and maybe we should look to him for cites.

What Laurel wants wasn't actually a part of my argument. What I appealed to was the notion that she was in fact always a woman, always trans, and never a cis male as your referred to her.

The part that stands out to me is this "Thus the records set by Laurel and Kaitlyn were not set in mens sport by Laurel and Kaitlyn as ladies competing in men's sport". That is the thing that I'm disputing that I've been wanting you to address. What confuses me now is that when Gansta characterised your view as that you said "NO I DO NOT".

So I yet again put to you the homosexual analogy. Elton John is just a prominent example. But when Elton John came out as gay would we say he was straight prior to that simply because he did straight things? Or would we say he was simply not out at that time? I think it's the latter.

My position is that when someone comes out to the world as trans that they are affirming what they always were. They are not "becoming a woman" at that time, they are simply socially transitioning to affirm what they always were (even if they didn't realise it).

And i should give you credit when its due.

So good for you for recognizing that and hopefully you will consider that in the future when you may think you are on the right side of a 'norm' to lecture someone else that they are wrong.

A norm DOES NOT denote right or wrong. It denotes what will be right more often than it is wrong. When you subjectively choose to apply a norm that is a 'bet' that you will be right. Not a fact or definitive. You could, in fact be wrong and the person on the other side of the norm could be correct. And as long as we are BOTH willing to listen to the person and correct, that is the correct path. And that applies more and more as you move into more niche areas.

So again, good for you in acknowledging that it seems like you might now wait and I will take a bow for perhaps enlightening your view on that while also recognizing you will be desperate not to acknowledge that.

I was talking about calling them a hero. It's not my place to give them a moniker like that given I only learned of their existence in the last few days.

You'll notice I referred to Quinn with neutral pronouns throughout.

As for norms, all I think "wrong" means is to be in or out of accord with one.

LOL. Your weird obsession with what I do and do not choose to reply to doesn't change my point:

You're the only guy who does this consistently in this thread, so no cherry picking is required.

After repeating calling me a dishonest liar, Cuepee REALLY wants to ignore acknowledging the posts that shows his accusations were just simple misunderstanding. A quick apology would go a long way, but he keeps dodging.

He establishes this standard of behaviour for others but when asked to provide the "factual goods" for he "accusation" he abandons the thread completely. Why on this point are you hiding? I mean you even said you would address it!

And so I did:
Crickets. Why is apologizing SO hard for Cuepee?

No, it is "their name". Everything conjugates exactly how you conjugate they with everybody else. This should be very easy.

You just misgendered them for the third (fourth time?). You've been told their pronouns. You've had an explanation. Nevertheless, you persist. Why?

Regardless, they are a hero specifically given their non-binary status and their advocacy for inclusion in sports. It is a bit like how both Barack Obama and Donald Trump can be role models as president (the obvious lols in the latter case notwithstanding) to all young kids with dreams, but Barack Obama as the historic first black president is specifically a role model to young black kids with dreams. In a world with so much disgust and discrimination leveled at young trans kids, having a role model who is out, who is massively successful, and who is advocating for them and their inclusion is extremely important.

Easy for you for me not really . Reality is I will make every attempt not to misgender someone that I still think is nuts but sadly like many I will make that mistake and correct it as using she/he are normal.

You are not a hero for being non binary and playing at a national level. Your to be looked to for your achievement of playing soccer at a national level

Name one sport that you are excluded from for being non-binary ?

Connor Mcdavid could come out as binary and no one would care. Now if he came out as gay that would be huge and reality is most wouldn't care

Cuepee is obviously - obviously - using different pronouns for effectively the same thing. Everyone else ITT, every article posted ITT (including the one posted by Cuepee himself) also uses the female pronoun, but Cuepee has spent weeks oobohing (offended on behalf of himself) that he isn't wrong to use the male pronoun. Honestly, my bet is he just forgot. He just slipped up and used the female pronoun and is now FURIOUSLY coming up with imaginary distinctions like this:



I don't buy it. Both version 1 and Version 2 are talking about the same past decades when she was competing as a male. How on earth do you rationalize one as "generalist" and one as "specific"; they are the same time period! Yet you use different pronouns....

What you are doing is confusing. Firstly, you are violating the standard convention everyone else uses. That is confusing. It is similar to how you thought "biowoman" was less confusing despite it being a term nobody else uses; maybe in a vacuum you would have a case but making up new language nobody else uses is just confusing. But secondly, your Version 1 and Version 2 are so similar, yet have different pronoun uses, that it is extremely confusing to know which is which. I still don't even know why YOU think they are different. So if you want to avoid being confusing, just adopt the standard convention.

It really shouldn't be this hard. One suggestion if this is a real challenge for you is to spend a concerted effort exposing yourself to perhaps some LGBT literature for instance so that you can help rewire whatever the mental block in your brain is that makes you consistently misgenger non-binary people. For instance, you are still slipping "I still think is nuts" which suggest a lot of internalized rejection of non-binary people, perhaps this plays a role in your consistent misgendering.


Ok, you've repeated yourself. Next time, could you specifically address the narrative I laid out explaining why I think they ARE a role model to young non-binary kids?

I just do not buy into this Non binary hero worshipping. I just do not see someone going through life till the day they die as non-binary.

As for gay, Trans gender I do not care. I build house if a Trans Gender person bid on a job and could do the work I would hire them If another trade said something derogatory to that person I would warn them and if they repeated it I would fire them. The same goes for race .
As well if I hired someone non-binary reality is I would refer to their name when communicating with them.

I still will say that the majority of the population believes
Trans Gender Woman who were born a man should not compete against woman and kids should not be given puberty blockers

I missed this earlier, sorry. I think unless people are put and proud these conversations occur entirely in the abstract. I think it became a lot harder to be racist when black sports stars started becoming idols to kids. I think it's a lot harder to spread pernicious ideas about LGBT folk when there are an increasing number of very prominent LGBT folk for people to look at and see as artists, actors, sports stars.

The more people are out the less of a big deal it is for the next person to come out, and the next person, and then your neighbour to come out, your son or daughter to come out, as those people will know more and more that society respects and values them. That they're part of the rich tapestry of culture and not a label to be muttered quietly.

Which isn't to put any onus on individuals who aren't ready to take that step in public, I just hope that us advocates can do enough to foster an environment where they can take that step.

I am not apologizing as I do not agree with your summary.

That is an OPINION issue that dragged dozens of pages and while i offered the agree to disagree and move on, you kept saying no.

Now you are trying to drag that back into discussion now for a repeat of the same 20 pages where not one thing will change. Just as Blades is trying to do with another issue. Just as it happening with this current one.


So sure, if you want to re-engage that prior 20 pages argument instead of just re-reading it from prior or copy and pasting it to your pleasure, then go ahead, restart your position and i will reply so we can re-run those prior 20 pages again.

I will await Bobo to call me out on it after we engage.

You seem offended? Who are you ooboo'ing for now?

Why do you think 'this should be easy' when most of it is not intuitive to others and they must be told and even those in the community, sometimes have to be told since there is a lot of non conformity in the community?

Well this goes back to a prior position of mine (punitive damages debate) where I would say 'it depends'.

I think you represented it far too black and white.

As an ideal I absolutely agree with you that getting to that point eventually is best. Tactically I do not necessarily agree that forcing it ALWAYS best, even if we agree it would right.

I use the Edmonton example here where I think the LGBTQ community has done a great job, in an otherwise challenging Province (the most bigoted in Canada) by trying to not push issues (right or not) into peoples faces and the mainstream where they could become political pawns where the LGBTQ could not sustain the votes and protections.

Some see that type of compromise as something to demonize and call all sorts of 'phobic' because they are speaking to an 'ideal' in society, but those at street level are often looking at the best tactical way to keep their communities safe.

Presented what as far too black and white? I don't know what you mean. All I'm saying is that the only way to progress to a point in which it's not a big deal for someone to come out is if other people have already done so.

Whether it's "tactical" or not having representatives of the LGBT community is an essential part of gaining acceptance. I never said anything about pushing issues in people's faces or anything like that. Quinn is just openly non-binary and that's great to hear.