Should a 'he' be called a 'she' if they still have a penis?

The answer should be, "other". That is, gender is surely not necessarily defined, solely by what is visibly attached to a person's body. And there is nothing new/radical about where science explains the same. I'm sure there is some cutting-edge research going on... but that surely isn't what I'm referring to here.

 

Thanks for the creepy title.

Sure, you want to cast such incidents as isolated, when that guy may have kids, or may be teaching your (or someone's) kids.

Definitely not.

The problem in a case like Jenner's is that what he projects is not a person at all, but a mere personality; and as I observed lo those many moons ago, the best case scenario for such unfortunates is that the person buried under the personality is unconfortably numb, in which case people like you are his worst enemies.

You think surgery can turn a man into a woman?

 

And it's no different than believing in a vengeful Sky-Daddy who demands to be worshiped and watches everything you do.

 

Actually I disagree, gender is assigned upon birth based on anatomy. At least that is how we understand it now.

 

I suppose that not being an 'expert' has me using some improper terminology, perhaps.

All I'm certain of is that the body parts on a person, doesn't absolutely define their gender, gender identity, or sexuality. Much of that is showing itself to be more fluid than old views/ideas (or beliefs) are comfortable with.

I've heard a few experts, over some decades discuss gender and sexuality... and realize it is something far more complex than most any forum such as this would ever cover. There is so much to it, I'm sure that few people really understand what it's about completely. And my main concern is seeing people come to a place where they aren't trying to hurt or discriminate against those who are 'different' overall.

Cheers, all.

 

You’re just asking about what people are called though. There are entirely separate questions in relation to actual behaviour, especially in the kind of contexts you refer. Someone could behave in potentially harmful ways without preferring any naming conventions and someone else could have a naming preference without any behavioural differences at all.

Whether someone prefers to be referred to as he or she, John or Jane alone doesn’t cause any actual harm. It may cause a little confusion and discomfort on the part of some people (yourself apparently being one of them) but that’s why the best answer to your actual question is to seek the least disruptive route. And it also stands that given your general attitude, there are going to be very few real situations where you have to actually address this problem. Has it ever come up in your day-to-day life or is your question entirely hypothetical?

 

No.but at least he/she is serious about it.

 

Yeah, seriously disturbed.

 

It really isn't that complex, if you know the difference between say a male and female dog, you're pretty much am expert.

Body parts absolutely define genders, it's how we know which chickens will lay eggs, and which cattle produce milk. It's how we know which humans can become pregnant.

Gender identity is related to societal constructs of assigned gender roles. Gender identity can change if it really is even necessary. I think we're finding that most of them aren't.

Genet isn't complex is virtually black and white.

 

It's quite complex. I know people who have personally/directly dealt with the related issues. People go to school a long time to parse all of this. I'm sure this forum's scholarship on the issue is quite limited.

Still, it just informs me that I cannot put to much energy into discussing it here.

 

I was once in VA and a pal and his wife knew somebody not far.

We got there after they told me the "Woman" was at birth a boy.

Could I tell by the looks?

I think I was able to.

When a person tells me the person is not a he, but a she ...

My first instinct is to trust science,. What do the genes say?

Do the genes shout man or woman?

IT is like a crazy person trying to tell me they really are a dog. I can see they are not a dog. That they bark is not proof they are a dog.

 

Can we just imagine a confused milk cow?

"Say, before you grab those to milk me, just beware that I am really a Bull" LOL

 

He probably had some voice in his head to tell him to be a her.
I've heard people hear voices in one's head.

 

No it's simple. Going to school for a decade doesn't make this complex.

 

You don't know their genes. You may not have known if you were never told. It's not my professsion to treat these people I'm not qualified and neither are you.

 

I never stated I am an expert in Genes and/or fully comprehend things like Chromosomes.

As you admit, your not being qualified in no way qualifies you to know what I know or don't know. Maybe later if I explain more you could comment.

As I do admit, I am not schooled well in all areas of biology. I have tended to focus more on early life than much more advanced life.

 

1) It does affect you, or will, if you live in Canada. See Bill C-16

2) Do you respect all 'life experiences' just because they're life experiences? Or are you choosy about which ones you'll respect?

3) We don't understand the obsession either, but apparently SJWs are SO obsessed that they're now moving compulsion to use them into legislation.

4) Any group or individual who feels so strongly about words that they're prepared to force their use by law, are the ones with a very narrow view of the world. And dangerous totalitarians to boot.

- - - Updated - - -

It's not us who cares, it's THEM. We just call them how we see them.

 

Once again, it's not US who care. It's the cross dressers. We're more than content to call a man in a dress 'he' (if he's very obviously a man).

 

You have no way of observing them. I didn't say you weren't am expert, I said you didn't know the first thing about someone's genes, not unless you do a DNA spectrum analysis.

The way you post, your completely biased statements indicate that you most certainly do not study behavior from a scientific perspective. You don't even consider behavior. You apply only biology.

That's like you telling me that I am not qualified to say a carpenter doesn't know what he is doing if he tries to drive a nail with a bow saw.

This isn't about biology. You're trying to drive a nail with a bow saw.

 

You zoomed in on a sound care principal. It does them no service at all to indulge the fantasy. We OCCASSIONALLY do so with small children, but it's always tempered and temporary (to some further and more important end).

 

You don't seem to have any grasp at all on the gargantuan shift in human social anthropology needed to accommodate an acceptance of personal delusion (or even just wishthink) as primary identifier. It's such an extreme posit that it deserves all the mockery it can possibly (and should) attract.

 

And no matter what the crazy person imagines of themselves, they're still talking to a person who has no clue of the intricate details of their delusions, and cannot therefore be expected to get it right. Meantime, I would refer to anyone who speaks and looks like Bruce Jenner does (today), as 'he'. If a 20 year old Thai tranny looks and sounds so convincingly female that I can't tell he's not (and an astonishing number do), then I'd refer to him as 'she'.

- - - Updated - - -

He's not mocking the crazy person, he's mocking societal pressure to conform to the delusions of others.

- - - Updated - - -

Give it time. Psychs are making up new 'conditions' all the time, to suit a demanding marketplace.

 

Why not call then what they identify as?

 

Learn to pay attention to the CONTENT of random strangers' delusions? Or learn just how objectionable the demands to do so are?

 

And if they identify as the King Of Sweden?

Seriously, Rob, that's crazy talk.