"She", not "he", guys

[henry quirk]

Why should I consider this question?

Why should I care about his cock or constructed cunt?

The question isn't relevant to anything I've posted in-thread.

#

"womanhood is not defined by a lack of a penis"

Agreed. It's defined by chromosome.

How far afield one chooses to go from that (by way of surgery and whatnot) is up to the individual, and still: 'he' is 'he' and 'she' is 'she' (no matter the self-defining).

[BigV]

Originally Posted by henry quirk

Why should I consider this question?

Why should I care about his cock or constructed cunt?

The question isn't relevant to anything I've posted in-thread.

#

"womanhood is not defined by a lack of a penis"

Agreed. It's defined by chromosome.

How far afield one chooses to go from that (by way of surgery and whatnot) is up to the individual, and still: 'he' is 'he' and 'she' is 'she' (no matter the self-defining).

Really?

I agree about it being irrelevant*, but you certainly posted about it in this thread, you opened the thread with the very idea at the center of your post.

*Ibby's genitals being her business, not yours

Originally Posted by henry quirk

If he has a penis, is genetically male, then -- despite *self-definition -- he is 'he'.

Yes?

No?

Opinions?









*that Ibram self-defines as 'girl' is fine by me; that he believes any one else is obligated to address him as a girl (for no other reason than because he wants it that way) is absurd.

[Cyber Wolf]

Originally Posted by henry quirk

"womanhood is not defined by a lack of a penis"

Agreed. It's defined by chromosome.

Not to put too fine a point on it, no it's not. The X chromosome only defines the female physical structure in a species. A molly (female cat) isn't a woman but it is a female. She has a body that can have babies and hormones that trigger estrus (her period) and she's slutty when there's toms around, etc. But she's not a woman (universally defined as a human) nor is this 'womanhood'. All of that behavior is largely based on hormones and what these hormones are instructing the body to do and where we humans differ from that is through the ability to recognize what we're doing and suppress/divert that behavior (in some cases) to somehow influence a social interaction. Manners and religious tenets are some methods of altering that behavior and neither of those have anything to do directly with which chromosome you won.

Womanhood, as it's generally defined, is comprised of societal expectations, pretty much everything that is expected of, allowed, given to or taken from a woman because the body that human has dangly bits on the chest and not between the legs. There are manners/mannerisms for women that men don't exhibit (and the other way around), there are expectations for women that men aren't expected to do, etc.

During embryo formation, there's a ton of things that can go awry and one of them is the formation of a human chimera. This can happen when a zygote or even an embryo absorbs a second (or more) embryos. This is how we get people with two different blood types in their body or two completely different types of hairs on their head (ie a blend of fine Norwegian blond and thick Mediterranean brown). If something as invisible to the eye as a blood type can be blended that way, I don't see why all or part of an XX zygote's endocrine system couldn't be absorbed by an XY zygote. If this XY comes to full term and gets born, you'll have a male human baby that will eventually be getting the hormone cocktail that a female human should have and less or none of what a male should have.

All that would be well and good in terms of survival, with the possibility that it'd be less likely for him to mate because he wouldn't give off the visual and hormonal triggers that would attract the female humans. It would also go unnoticed until after the child has started school and truly begins his social training, interacting regularly with other males and females of similar age. But the issue is, once he's old enough to start seriously taking in the role his apparent gender plays in society, he's not going to feel right about it because no one else like him will seem the same way. He'll be steered towards things that a young XY male with XY-expected hormones should be interested in, but he'll find himself more interested in what the XX-expected hormones are telling him. Then, over time, society will either tell him "No, you're wrong! Shape up, you little pussy!" or "Be who you are, free spirit!" or both at once, depending on what the parents and immediate surroundings are like. So, he'll pretend all his life, for fear of societal repercussions, or he'll act on it, despite the societal repercussions. Or he'll kill himself because that'll seem easier than choosing.

In a nutshell (see what I did there?), this kid is gonna have a bad time either way and it all began waaaay before any concept of woman- or man-hood came into it.

[Sundae]

V, note that HQ is referring to Calpernia as "he".

[BigV]

I missed that.

[DanaC]

It's kind of hard to spot a turd when it's floating in a sewer.

[Ibby]

Originally Posted by DanaC

It's kind of hard to spot a turd when it's floating in a sewer.

[henry quirk]

V,

There's a context to my (and every one else's) posts.

If you dis-embed one post, one line, from the others then you can make it seem that I mean 'this' instead of 'that'.

Yes, I "*certainly posted about it in this thread", but within the context of the 'source' of maleness, the source of femaleness.

As I say in post 164...

'XY imparts certain characteristics to the flesh (as a whole). You possess these characteristics because you are XY (male, 'he'). How you choose to accentuate or diminish those characteristics is up to you. Your reasons or reasoning for accentuating or diminishing these characteristics is yours to suss out and is wholly irrelevant to me (or this thread). The source of those characteristics, however, remains the same (regardless of 'where' or 'when' you happen to be, or, what you want, or perceive yourself, to be).'

#

"Ibby's genitals being her business, not yours"

Agreed. What is my business, however, is the demand to ignore what is real (Ibby being male) in favor of making him 'feel' better about himself.

##

Sun,

"HQ is referring to Calpernia as "he"."

Because he's a guy.

##

Dana,

"...a turd when it's floating in a sewer"

Of all the folks disagreeing with me, you, Dana are the most puzzling.


(1) As you are an academic, I thought you'd appreciate 'fact' over 'feeling'.

I offer 'fact' and you weigh in with 'feeling'.


(2) As liberal or progressive or whatever, I thought you'd appreciate 'tolerance'.

I make no threats and levy no insults against Ibby or any other transgendered person. I tell him (over and over) he SHOULD DO EXACTLY AS HE LIKES WITH HIS FLESH and this isn't enough for you. As I will not submit to the current 'correct' view, my tolerance (indifference, really) is dismissed and I'm called 'bully' and 'cunt'.

Fundamentally: Ibby wants to be called 'she' when in fact he is 'he' and I'm the bad guy because I won't walk the proscribed line dictated by Ibby and his supporters.

*shrug*











*and, if that had been my only post in this thread, you might have a platform to call me out, but it wasn't my only post.

[Stormieweather]

I think, if someone feels insulted by a certain label, the refusal to use whatever terminogy they've expressed they would prefer is obdurate and flat out rude.

Sort of like referring to a female as "woman" to her face. Ie: "When is dinner going to be ready, woman?". Maybe she'd prefer to be called domestic goddess or supreme commander of the kitchen, or even Susan. While "woman" is technically accurate, if she finds it insulting to be generalized and minimized, considerate individuals will call her whatever name she prefers, instead.

It's pretty much a sideways "fuck you, I don't care about you, I'll do whatever I want".

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by henry quirk

V,

(1) As you are an academic, I thought you'd appreciate 'fact' over 'feeling'.

I offer 'fact' and you weigh in with 'feeling'.

Well, as a historian, 'facts' are very much a starting point. The real work lies in interpretation. And 'facts' as they are presented can be tricky beasts indeed, particularly when we are dealing with individual experience and identity.

I can see how my responding with 'feelings' might confuse you. But, my particular fields of interest/expertise, are very much concerned with experience and identity.

I have two main areas of interest which crossover with each other at various points. The first, and central to my research is the soldier experience during the long eighteenth century, and particularly during the Napoleonic era. How they identified themselves and were identified by others is a fairly fundamental part of that.

The second area of interest and the area I usually teach, is gender in the same period. How was it constructed, applied, accepted, performed, or rejected? How and why did gender constructions change? How was gender used culturally? for example the masculinity of British national identity, versus the femininity which the British ascribed to their 'natural and necessary enemy' the French; the gendering of the 'other' in the context of imperialism and exploration, the use of gender to codify and understand alternate cultures (the taxonomic studies of the female form in different races - with each racial type ranked according to the size, shape, pertness of the breasts, and the degree to which each culture conformed to 'proper' gender roles (e.g the separate spheres of male and female lives); scientific understandings of gender and the medicalisation of the female within that

The ways in which masculinity was constructed and applied, and how that changed. The ways in which femininity was constructed and applied and how that changed. The way individuals experienced and performed gender, and how they self-identified (did the middling orders of 18th century Britain conform, for example, to the 'separate spheres' model which permeates popular culture, advice books, scientific and philosophical tracts? ). The ways in which gender constructions loosened and tightened according to the needs and insecurities of the time. How new ways of approaching the natural world (including humans) altered the ways in which men and women thought of themselves and each other.

I really, really don't see gender in the same way you do, henry.

[BigV]

Good morning hq.

Originally Posted by henry quirk

"Ibby's genitals being her business, not yours"

Agreed. What is my business, however, is the demand to ignore what is real (Ibby being male) in favor of making him 'feel' better about himself.

Do you have a cite for this assertion? I don't remember any demand from Ibby to ignore anything. This seems to be your main complaint, the keystone of this thread you started. Where did this happen? I am trying to see things from your perspective. You don't like to be told what to do, especially when it is in direct conflict with your thoughts on the matter. That's completely understandable.

BUT, there are parts where I have trouble extending this line of thought, the first being no memory or knowledge of such a demand. If you can, would you please show me where this demand is being made?

Secondly, the whole idea of what pronoun to use is not something that is always unambiguously definite. We use pronouns with some latitude all the time. I refer to you as "he", but that's just a convention. I don't know you, I don't know about your genitals, your state of mind, your attitudes, your chromosomes, none of that. In fact, what I can say about you with confidence is that I type posts in response to posts associated with your username. Those posts have no gender. But I use that pronoun nonetheless.

What is right and fair to be referred to as "he" is widely variable, and so is what is right and fair to be considered "male". I get being hung up on language--I do. I couldn't let Pam's remarks about a penis being a physical deformity go unchallenged. Just language, right? But I had to respond. And I did, and so did she, it got worked out. I see your tilting at this windmill in this light. We, humans, use language to work stuff out. Your inability/refusal to capitulate to Ibby's demands is clearly justified, to you. To me, and to others who have commented here, it is not justified, it is simply a rejection of broadly accepted conventions of cellar etiquette, social norms, and casual usage of language among regular people. You're just saying "no".

That's fine, fine, really. But it's not "right". You might be able to say with a great deal of certainty something about Ibby's chromosomes, you might be able to confidently aver to a physical description of his genitals. Those kinds of things are amenable to objective measurement. Being male is not as objectively, atomically measurable. And the usage of a given pronoun is even less so. You can choose to use whatever words you like, but the logic of your argument--Ibby has xy chromosomes therefore has a penis therefore is male therefore requires the use of the pronoun "he"--breaks down under scrutiny in our immediate frame of reference. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that is what your logic looks like from here.

****

Originally Posted by henry quirk

within the context of the 'source' of maleness, the source of femaleness.

As I say in post 164...

'XY imparts certain characteristics to the flesh (as a whole). You possess these characteristics because you are XY (male, 'he'). How you choose to accentuate or diminish those characteristics is up to you. Your reasons or reasoning for accentuating or diminishing these characteristics is yours to suss out and is wholly irrelevant to me (or this thread). The source of those characteristics, however, remains the same (regardless of 'where' or 'when' you happen to be, or, what you want, or perceive yourself, to be).'

I don't agree. xy imparts certain characteristics to the flesh, like a penis. But that's not all that makes me male, and importantly, there is MUCH about me, much of what I do that manifests my maleness that has nothing to do with my penis. It's a part (a big part, ha ha) of my maleness, but not the majority.

Think about the experiences you have throughout the day, using a very helpful linguistic handle like a pronoun that is masculine or feminine, but without actually knowing about genitals. The cues used to reach that grammatical conclusion are the kinds of things I'm talking about that justify "he" or "she". I use those, and so do you, without actually knowing what's in their pants. It is the running total of these inputs that is the "source of maleness, the source of femaleness". A penis or a vagina, the direct physical result of one's chromosomes, contributes to this running total, and in most folks, it is a reinforcing contribution. But not always. You have certainly had the experience, or at least can imagine dealing with someone you assessed to be male only to find out later that that person didn't have a penis. In that case, her genitals aren't adding to that running total. I reckon in Pam's case, or Ibby's case, or Calpernia's case, their genitals are a factor that detract from that running total; their sum total is female *despite* their genitals, not because of them. Genitalia is a factor in gender, not a conclusion. I believe you are confusing causation and correlation.

tl;dr

hq=penis is male, V=no it is not.

****

Originally Posted by henry quirk

Sun,

"HQ is referring to Calpernia as "he"."

Because he's a guy.

Given your standards for determining what gender pronoun to use (chromosomes, genitalia), how can you support this statement?

[Happy Monkey]

henry was worried that when he used "he" to refer to Ibby, people might view it as an oversight. He made this thread to make sure everyone knew that he did it just to be an enormous jerk.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

henry was worried that when he used "he" to refer to Ibby, people might view it as an oversight. He made this thread to make sure everyone knew that he did it just to be an enormous jerk.

scf, please!

you *know* I drink a lot in the morning

[henry quirk]

"I don't remember any demand from Ibby to ignore anything."

He demands to be called 'she'. To do so I have ignore the fact that he is 'he'.

#

Stop asserting I fixate on 'cock'. The mention of 'cock' (as sexual characteristic extending out from genes) is not the crux of my position.

If 'you' need to fixate on 'cock', please do.

#

'He' denotes a state of being, in this case a state of being dictated by a specific chromosome.

You wish to conflate all manner of shifty, cultural, notions about maleness into my position.

Stop it.

In this thread I'm only addressing the foundation for 'he' and she', for real and not-real.

#

"how can you support this statement?"

It's an assumption based on his self-description as 'transgender woman' meaning he, at one time, had male physical characteristics (characteristics extending directly from a specific chromosome pattern) and that he altered or diminished those characteristics (but not the source of those characteristics).

[BigV]

Total fail.

Originally Posted by henry quirk

"I don't remember any demand from Ibby to ignore anything."

He demands to be called 'she'. To do so I have ignore the fact that he is 'he'.

To paraphrase: "Cite or it didn't happen." Don't go all tw on us and shift the responsibility away from you to support your statement.

Originally Posted by henry quirk

Stop asserting I fixate on 'cock'. The mention of 'cock' (as sexual characteristic extending out from genes) is not the crux of my position.

If 'you' need to fixate on 'cock', please do.

You introduce the word 'cock', not me. You, yourself, open this very thread with "penis". Remember this?

Originally Posted by hq

If he has a penis, is genetically male, then -- despite *self-definition -- he is 'he'.

Not the crux of your position? It is the ONLY factor in post after post after post from you. Chromosomes --> physical characteristics --> gendered pronoun. You say fixation, I say focus, focus on your own words.

Originally Posted by henry quirk

'He' denotes a state of being, in this case a state of being dictated by a specific chromosome.

No. "He" is just a pronoun that is used in many ways, all over the place. In this case, a specific chromosome "imparts certain physical characteristics", not the meaning of words.

Originally Posted by henry quirk

You wish to conflate all manner of shifty, cultural, notions about maleness into my position.

Stop it.

In this thread I'm only addressing the foundation for 'he' and she', for real and not-real.

Your definition of the foundation of 'he' and 'she' is unrealistically strict and narrow. It is incomplete and unrealistic. Given the completely rigid understanding of gender and pronouns you demonstrate, I was going to say you lack imagination. But that would be wrong. If you truly believe what you're writing, you have no lack of imagination, you simply lack reality.

Originally Posted by henry quirk

"how can you support this statement?"

It's an assumption based on his self-description as 'transgender woman' meaning he, at one time, had male physical characteristics (characteristics extending directly from a specific chromosome pattern) and that he altered or diminished those characteristics (but not the source of those characteristics).

Here you contradict your own argument. You're all "It's the chromosomes, stupid" but here you are just going on someone's statement. How is that verifiably "real" and not "not-real"? It's ok to assume, but your justification for that assumption is some distance from what you proclaim is the gold standard of evidence. You rely on some of the same cues, some of the same shifty cultural notions we all do, but draw a different conclusion, weighting chromosomes at 100%, and nothing else matters. There is no dictionary in the world that defines "he" as "having xy chromosomes".