Board Thread:Fun and Games/@comment-48285-20161205164344/@comment-25814498-20170619233558

Very interesting. In fact, the fickle nature of biology is what one user touched upon on Kite's talk page, and I conceded that in certain circumstances, biological factors may not be enough to determine what pronouns or gender to refer to somebody by/as. Even so, however, I do think there is a problem with placing one's own self-identity over biological factors when such factors are clearly apparent.

Consistency in looks is, for instance, not at all a scientific pre-requisite for determining an organism as male or female. In terms of humans especially, it is largely the ability to produce sperm, male genitalia and the XY chromosomes which determine whether someone is viewed as "male" or not. In contrast, the ability to produce eggs, female genitalia and the presence of the XX chromosome is largely used to determine whether a creature is biologically female or not. Like I stated above, if none of these factors could be easily identified, if they were all jumbled up in an amalgamation of phenotypes and genes, it may be the most logical decision to refer to the person by their preferred pronouns, but only because it could not be surmised biologically speaking. What you described, such as low testosterone levels, breast size and facial hair are all features which may be more common in one sex than another but are none the less not dictating factors taken into account when considering the biological sex of someone. Societally, masculinity may be associated with broad shoulders, bushy beards and deep voices, whilst femininity may be associated with wide hips, long hair and high voices, hence the differentiation placed between "gender" and "sex", as whilst gender is largely dictated by social norms, sex is dictated by scientific ones. Even so, I do not believe that the two should be separated completely. There can be such thing as a feminine man(your father, for instance, due to his low testosterone levels), just as there can be such a thing as masculine woman(such as the flat-chested women you described), but this does not change the fact that they are still men and women regardless of how they self-identify. "Masculine" and "Feminine" are largely social constructs concerned with gender, whilst "male" and "female" are scientific constructs concerned with sex, and whilst the two are not synonymous, they are not at all detached from one another.

To answer your question (which kind of ironic, considering this is your GTK)  about the transgendered woman, I would state that if the changes were purely cosmetic, they are still not reason enough to change the pronouns we refer to that person by, nor the gender we view that person as. Sex is not determined by cosmetic differences, it is determined some of the factors I listed above, such as the ability to produce eggs, female sexual organs etc. In terms of masculinity and femininity, the person may be viewed as an extremely feminine man due to the cosmetic changes he underwent, as well as the behaviour and mannerisms which he may adopt (or they may have always been used by him), but once again, they would simply be an extremely feminine male, not feminine female. Should any biological factors remain that make his sex clear, such as chromosome type, he should be referred to as a male. If, for instance, he was genetically intersex and then had his genitalia removed, there would be no biological factors anchoring him to the male sex, thus it may be appropriate to refer to them by their preferred pronouns.

Your point on brain structures is a strong one, and one that is difficult to argue against, however, I would first like to point out that such a thing is a biological factor, not simply a case of self-identification, hence the reason why it is so difficult to argue against, because it is in fact what I am arguing in favour of. Biologically speaking, the transgendered male has a brain structure that has much more in common with a cis-gendered man than a cis-gendered woman, and as such, it could be argued that such a thing may be a factor by which to determine a person's sex. Even so, if a woman were to identify as a male and didn't have a similar enough brain structure to a cis-gendered male, would they be denied the right to identify as such?

Finally, I would like to identify the properly basic truth which you seem to hold. That truth is, and I quote "the only thing that's actually important is what a person tells you about themself". Which in itself if fine, and when upheld, makes it perfectly logical to refer to people by their preferred pronouns. But even so, why is gender special? If we as a society should change our language in order to accommodate a transgendered person's belief that they are male/female, in contradiction to their biological sex, why can't transspecies people exist, or transaged people, or transpeople people? Why can't I identify a Silver Back Gorilla, or a cactus, or Stephen Hawkins? Why can't I, a biologically 17-year-old man identify as a 76-year-old woman? Why is the line drawn at gender? Using your properly basic truth, it cannot be. In fact, it cannot logically be drawn anywhere. Using your properly basic truth, I can "Shed [what was initially given to me] and find something that fits better", and you should, as a person, change your language in order to fit my new identity, regardless of whether it concerns gender or not. If you can do such a thing, then there is nothing wrong with your belief. If you can refer to me as a 76-year-old Female Gorilla Hawkins, then you are being completely consistent with you sentiment. But if not? If not, it is not a justifiable belief to attain to, as you would not be staying consistent to the connotations of such a statement, and it would be irrational to respect a transgendered person's preferred pronouns and the language used to describe them, but not a transspecies person, or a transaged or transperson person.

If you can attain to such a belief, I have immense respect for the level of acceptance which you seem to possess. But at the same time, I hope you can understand why I cannot in good conscience respect a transgendered person's preferred pronouns without considering myself a hypocrite.

I would also like to apologise if you interpreted my words as meaning that I had changed my stance of the matter of pronouns. I haven't, as you have probably gathered; rather, the constant back and forths between in the whole debate have solidified and rectified some of the reasoning and rationale behind my beliefs, which I hope have been made apparent through this response. I undeniably respect you as a person, but that does not mean that respecting your preferred pronouns would be hypocritical of me.

Question: Am I a mess still?