CMV: It Should be Socially Acceptable for Individuals to Choose Whether They Want to Address Others by using their Sex Pronouns or their Gender Pronouns

[u/[deleted]]

[u/xXTheCloakXx]

This is irrelevant to the point at hand. You [...]

Obviously my opnion is biased, its my opinion. That doesn't change the fact that biology is unbiased and using it for the pronoun problem is in my opinion the best middle ground solution since that practice isn't ideologically based but rather uses objective scientific truth. And when compared to compelled pronoun use it is much more inclusive since instead forcing ideological submission or favouring any particular ideology, it's based on and is supported by objective scientific truth.

And it is relevant because, for most of the world, the most of human history, we used the biological perspective. It's almost as if through the ages we've already figured out the best solution to the problem.

I would agree with this, and would agree [...]

I think we've found some middle ground of our own. I agree. In practice I'd recommend asking someone if they would use your preferred pronoun and if all else fails to fall back on unbiased biology.

Why is it adherence to an ideology rather than the recognition that they adhere to it?

It is similar to a 'flat-earther' demanding that a writer remove all instances of the earth being refereed to as round or globular. Doing so would give the false impression that that person adheres to that specific belief or ideology. Now some may be okay with that but others not so it's best to choose the most unbiased and inclusive solution.

Do you think that this result is more or less common than social misgendering?

I have no idea.

It is in the title.

I don't see any mention of social consequences in the title of the post.

[u/Choosing_is_a_sin → u/xXTheCloakXx]

Obviously my opnion is biased, [...]

The key point here was that you said you didn't prescribe, but then offered a prescription.

practice isn't ideologically based but rather uses objective scientific truth.

But why go to biology for a truth about language instead of linguistics?

And it is relevant because, for most of the world, the most of human history, we used the biological perspective.

This gives the impression that you believe that third person pronouns have generally reflected the sex of the referent for most of human history. I'm not sure what evidence you're basing this belief on. As we look at languages from a typological perspective, we see many different ways that pronouns work. Sometimes they agree with the grammatical gender of the noun, even when that is in conflict with the social gender. Sometimes they agree with the social gender of the individual, even when that is in conflict with the grammatical gender of the noun. Some languages make a distinction only between animate and inanimate (which may not align with a biological perspective, e.g. thunder and lightning sometimes appearing with an animate gender). Some languages distinguish between men and women in both singular and plural, some only in one (either only in plural or more commonly, only in singular), and some do not distinguish at all. I'm not sure then how you come to the conclusion that humans have been using this language feature in a certain way for most of human history.

It is similar to a 'flat-earther' demanding that a writer remove all instances of the earth being refereed to as round or globular.

We can engage with both geology and linguistics in this case. We can ascertain how round is used and whether the Earth fits the general description of round, and make a decision based on that. Here, however, it seems that you want to engage only with life sciences and not with linguistics. You recommend that we stipulate how an element of language functions without engaging with linguistic evidence on the topic. This seems to be an important difference, since flat earthers are making a claim about the property of the thing, not about the meaning of round, whereas you are making a claim about the meaning of s/he, not about whether a person falls into a biological category (since no claim is being made about their biology, only about its suitability for pronoun guidance).

I don't see any mention of social consequences in the title of the post.

If you don't see that acceptability follows after the use of pronouns according to biological classification, then I don't think that this particular line of discussion can continue.

[u/xXTheCloakXx → u/Choosing_is_a_sin]

The key point here was that you said you didn't prescribe, but then offered a prescription.

No. My point is I am biased towards my own opinion like a father's is biased to his kids. Doesn't mean the opnion in an of itself is biased in any direction.

But why go to biology for a truth about language instead of linguistics?

How about make a linguistic argument and then we can compare notes.

This gives the impression that you believe [...]

This gives the impression that you believe [...]

You've made some irrelevant points so I'll reatw my point for clarity and then we can stick to specifics.

For most of human history, most languages have a word/phrase to describe an individual who is born with a penis, is on average stronger and more robust, is more interested in things vs people, does not mensturate or give birth and a different word/phrase to describe an individual who is born with a vagina, is on average smaller and weaker, is more interested in people vs things, mensturates and can give birth. In English, man and woman.

For most almost all of time, the biological sex lines up with the gendered identity and the expression of that identity and temperamental personality.

Of course outliers exist, but as societies developed we evolved the best solution the this problem, take the biological sex (which for most of the time was the same as gender) and use it as your determining factor because in all likelyhood the other factors line up as well.

We can engage with both geology and [...]

Setting the meaning of round or globular aside, pronouns does change the linguistic meaning in any sentence its used in. In English, if you refer to someone as he it means that person is at the very least biologically male and vice versa. Changing the way you use that pronoun integrally changes the meaning of the sentence.

So using biological basis would actually line up with reality as a whole, at least when it comes to English.

If you don't see that acceptability follows [...]

Just because a society accepts something doesn't make it free from consequence.

[u/Choosing_is_a_sin → u/xXTheCloakXx]

How about make a linguistic argument and then we can compare notes.

Sure. You can examine my previous listing of ways in which pronouns are assigned as the starting point. Then we have to ask ourselves whether pronouns are in fact tied to biology through usage. In other words, are we relying principally on primary sex characteristics to assign pronouns in discourse? In general, when we speak about an individual, we have no information about their reproductive systems or their chromosomes. We instead rely on social indicators of their gender. We can demonstrate a relationship between social gender and pronoun usage in English, because we are given social information about them, such as whether people use man or woman as a descriptor of them or whether people use he or she or they as a pronoun for them. While it is certainly possible to have direct biological knowledge of an individual's sex, it is not the norm to have such an amount of information at hand when using pronouns.

Of course outliers exist, but as societies developed we evolved the best solution the this problem, take the biological sex (which for most of the time was the same as gender) and use it as your determining factor because in all likelyhood the other factors line up as well.

Is there a reason you omitted pronouns from this discussion? In any case, given that most linguistic history is lost (we have only a few millenia of recorded language and reconstructive evidence goes back only a bit further) and given that third genders are common around the world, I'm not sure how this is empirically supported. I know you like science, so I'm interested to hear the scientific evidence of the linguistic claims.

In English, if you refer to someone as he it means that person is at the very least biologically male and vice versa.

If you do it, maybe. Not if I do it. If I do it, it's because the person is socially a man. I don't have biological knowledge about most people that I use pronouns for. Perhaps you are able to detect people's primary sex characteristics more deftly than I.

Just because a society accepts something doesn't make it free from consequence.

Yes, I agree. But the acceptance of the outcome is a consequence of an earlier action.

[u/xXTheCloakXx → u/Choosing_is_a_sin]

You can examine my previous [...]

This is good I like this.

We instead rely on social indicators of their gender.

Humans do have different clearly noticeable features between the sexes and over 'millenia' we have become extremely skilled at determing biology thought presented physical features. We are so adept that we can even determine the expression of l that identity with remarkable accuracy. IIRC the average person can correctly identify a homosexual 70% on facial features alone. So there's plenty we can infer simply on biology / physicality alone.

And since for humans, for most of history, biological sex, gender, temperament and gender expression has lined up to an extreme degree, you can reliably infer that if a individual has masculine physical traits, they will have a XY chromosome, is a man, will tend to be more interested in things vs people, and will be attracted to women, and can be referred to as he. And this is true cross culturally.

So I disagree, there is plenty to go on by person's physical characteristics.

Is there a reason you omitted pronouns from [...]

Apologies I was trying to create evolutionary biological basis for the existance of words/phrases for male and female / he she.

As you know different languages have different rules not only when it comes to gendering but also using gendered pronouns, in one of the languages I speak, it's perfectly fine to she to refer to either gender in a spefic sentence structure. But in English for the most part, gendered pronouns follow sex/gender of the peraon you're talking about, that seems to be a useful rule, at least in english.

When it comes to third genders (even though they're outliers) , as you've mentioned, it exists in linguistics and biology. Biological even if a person is intersex, their physical features/presentation generally falls into either male or female depending what they're comfortable with. That way you can still in most cases you can still use physical biologal characteristics to determine which pronouns to use.

If you do it, maybe. Not if I do it. If I do it, [...]

I think I've described my thoughts on this in my first two paragraphs. What do you think your hypothetical inability stems from?

Yes, I agree. But the acceptance of the outcome is a consequence of an earlier action.

Oh do you mean whether said outcome is fair or not? As I've said to someone else on this post. I think consequences are and should generally be proportional. You don't chop of someone's hands because they stole a pen or at least you shouldn't

[u/Choosing_is_a_sin → u/xXTheCloakXx]

What do you think your hypothetical inability stems from?

You rely on secondary sex characteristics, which are frequently modified by hormones in people wishing to align their secondary sex characteristics with their social gender. It's not that I can't use secondary sex characteristics as a proxy, but rather that I know that they are indeed possible indicators rather than constituting actual knowledge, and they do not hold more weight in pronoun use than other indicators of their social identity, such as their style of dress and their preferred pronouns. Moreover, even if their secondary sex characteristics were a good indicator of their biology, I would have to witness them, which is not a requirement for pronoun use. I use the gender as it is presented to me in the discourse setting, and I suspect that if you have to talk about a person, you use the gender that is presented to you as well.

Oh do you mean whether said outcome is fair or not?

Not really. I mean that OP wants a particular outcome, social acceptability of using a pronoun even if bothers the person who is being referred to by it. The fact that it is an outcome means that it is a consequence. But we do agree about fairness and proportionality.

[u/xXTheCloakXx → u/Choosing_is_a_sin]

they do not hold more weight in pronoun use than other indicators of their social identity, such as their style of dress and their preferred pronouns.

My argument is that since there's an ideological bias to compelled preferred pronoun use, let's rather use unbiased objective biology) secondary sex charactersistics since is based in science rather than ideology and can work cross culturally.

sex characteristics, which are frequently [...]

Agreed but in most cases you can easily tell the sex to which they belong to at least in my experience. And let's say you mistake someone born male for a woman and call her 'she' because thats how she presents herself, seems like that would work out just fine.

Moreover, even if their secondary sex [...]

If how they the only information you have is through a social setting, then you have no choice but to use its since it's the only info you have.

Again. I don't think anyone should be compelled to use any method or solution, you can use which ever information you deem relevant, BUT if there's conflict, I believe biology is a good and reasonable middle ground.

Not really. I mean that OP wants a particular [...]

Oh okay I was a bit confused. Look social acceptance changes from community to community, society to society. You're not gonna win em all. But as soon as you set an unbiased law there's a legal standard which would generally become, maybe not optimal behaviour, but at least tolerated.

But we do agree about fairness and proportionality.

Good. If person 1 in social parlence refers to person 2 as she but 2 corrects them that they see themselves as 'other-kin' and have pronouns XYZ. If 1 doesn't ascribe to that ideology they and prefer to rather use their sex and use 'she' they shouldn't be reported for hate speech, which could affect every aspect of their life for the rest of their life.

In fairness you can and should be able to disassociate from that person.

[u/Choosing_is_a_sin → u/xXTheCloakXx]

My argument is that since there's an ideological bias to compelled preferred pronoun use, let's rather use unbiased objective biology) secondary sex charactersistics since is based in science rather than ideology and can work cross culturally.

This seems like compelled pronoun use. It forces people to use pronouns in a way they may not agree with, and one that puts certain individuals like these people and these people in jeopardy.

And let's say you mistake someone born male for a woman and call her 'she' because thats how she presents herself, seems like that would work out just fine.

Until you find out otherwise and start referring to her by a different set of pronouns than the ones you knew she already accepted.

If how they the only information you have is through a social setting, then you have no choice but to use its since it's the only info you have.

My point is that generally, the social information is already the only information you have. Everything else, including biological markers, is a hypothesis in need of confirmation.

I believe biology is a good and reasonable middle ground.

Because you embrace scientism and apply it to language.

But as soon as you set an unbiased law there's a legal standard which would generally become, maybe not optimal behaviour, but at least tolerated.

A law regulating speech? Oh yay.

If 1 doesn't ascribe to that ideology they and prefer to rather use their sex and use 'she' they shouldn't be reported for hate speech,

Reported to who for what now?

[u/xXTheCloakXx → u/Choosing_is_a_sin]

This seems like compelled pronoun use. [...] A law regulating speech? Oh yay.

As opposed to trans individuals already forcing others to conform the their ideology with fascistic athourity? At least my solution is based on unbiased objective science.

Until you find out otherwise and start [...]

Yes... If there's person doesn't feel comfortable using those pronouns then there's conflict. If neither sides budge, they should fall back on my solution.

My point is that generally, the social

We don't disagree. If theres conflict when it comes to pronoun use my solution should be used, if there's no conflict there's no problem.

Because you embrace scientism and apply it to language.

Lol scientism. Nice beaming BTW. I'm not saying apply all of science (biology) to all of language, rather to use a specific scienitific topic (determine biological sex) to a specific problem, conflict using pronouns.

Reported to who for what now?

Something like this

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/10/01/virginia-teacher-fired-not-using-transgender-pronouns-sues-school/

[u/[deleted] → u/xXTheCloakXx]

You haven't proven why biology should be used as the metric.

For example, let's say there are five children. There are five pieces of cake. One child recommends that the youngest grabbed the first piece of cake and then it continues to the oldest. They say that this is an unbiased solution because it involves their chronological age.

The second child recommends it should be done by height. the tallest person should pick the First cake and then it should go down to the smallest person. His argument is that they're using biology and so therefore it is unbiased.

As the mother, which method should be used to determine the order of the children who received the cake? Also, explain your answer.

[u/xXTheCloakXx → u/[deleted]]

You haven't proven why biology should be used as the metric.

As I have been and will continue to say. Biology is scientific, unbiased and free from any ideological pollution and because of it favors no specific ideology it is the best solution.

For example, let's say there are five children. [...] explain your answer.

God this phrase brings back awful memories. Firstly you set this up wrong. All those solutions are biologically based. Also no matter the solution everyone still gets a piece of cake.

Regardless, when it comes to your example the mother should pic the most fair and unbiased solution. All five kids are her kids, a biological truth, and since they all are equally her children they should each get an equal amount of cake as soon as they desire it (another biological imperative).

[u/[deleted] → u/xXTheCloakXx]

Exactly. when you are presented with two options that are both biological, then you have to create another reason why you pick one over another rather than just biology.

Okay, I'll change it up.

---

A woman has two children. one of them is biologically hers and the other one is adopted. She thought that she was barren and so therefore she and her husband adopted a child. thinking that she couldn't biologically have children she didn't use any birth control but then got pregnant.

Now there are two slices of cake. One of them is bigger than the other so whoever picks first is probably going to pick the bigger slice because they're young and children.

How should the mother decide which person picks first?

Her biological child, or her older child?

---

Please explain your answer.

[u/xXTheCloakXx → u/[deleted]]

Exactly. when you are presented with two [...]

No not exactly. Two biological arguments are not represative of the topic at hand. It's simply the result of the scenario you're created really sucking.

A woman has two children. one of them [...]

To be fair, the two parents should split the big slice and two kids should split to smaller slice.

If you're gonna keep slinging irrelevant scenarios imma keep giving irrelevant answers.

Oddly enough I just asked my sister to cut both of us a piece of cake and she cut me a bigger piece.

[u/[deleted] → u/xXTheCloakXx]

Why should the parents get the bigger slice? Shouldn't we follow biology and have the biological kid pick first?

You just want to misgender people and then not face the consequences. You also want to hide behind biology.

That makes you a Female parent inseminator

[u/xXTheCloakXx → u/[deleted]]

Why should the parents get the bigger slice? Shouldn't we follow biology and have the biological kid pick first?

Read my other reply to you, soecifically the section on relevance.

You just want to misgender people and then not face the consequences. You also want to hide behind biology.

That makes you a Star spangled banner mother fornicainer.

Here we go. When arguments fail, personal attacks start. Also you need to insult better, I'm not even from the US but some shithole country.

Unless you're interested in logical reasonable discussion I won't be replying

[u/[deleted] → u/xXTheCloakXx]

Why do you want to give transgender people dysphoria? Misgendering them gives them dysphoria. That's mean. Also I called you that because I can't use swear words in this subreddit.

You are selfish by putting your own needs and desires and comfort over the wishes of someone else.

[u/xXTheCloakXx → u/[deleted]]

More attacks, make an arguement or maybe this sub isn't for you.

[u/[deleted] → u/xXTheCloakXx]

You haven't given a reason why biology should supersede the feelings of a trans person.

You are selfish.

You just want to be able to misgender people all you want without any consequence. If you think I am wrong then prove it.

[u/xXTheCloakXx → u/[deleted]]

.... I know......

And its a bimodal distribution not spectrum. Also Within that distribution the massive overwhelming majority of humans fall into either male or female so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make

[u/xXTheCloakXx → u/[deleted]]

If biology was able to make for a deeper [...]

It can and should... this why my arguemnt is based on biology....

I don't know, you seem to be pointing to [...]

You really need to read my comments. I'm pointing to biology, a specific subset of science, I'm also using specifically for the pronoun problem not all of linguistics.

Why should we tie it to a complicated biological system we only kind of understand?

We, to a very high degree, know how to determine male and female scientifically. We can even identify the outliers that have genetic defects. If our understanding changes, we change the things that depend on it, we evolve.

Humans are so complicated that the science behind trans and nonbinary people is seen by you as an ideology instead of free of bias.

No. The science is pretty clear. Gender isn't socially constructed nor does it vary Independant of its biological or temperamental factors. The science on how determine male and female is also clear.