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

Absent a scientific conclusion on the subject said identifiers are relative to an individual assessment thus subjective as opposed to universally agreed upon by all humanity or at least the scientific community.

 

People do not have the right to demand that other people refer to them with made up words. It's a first amendment violation. The gender fascists are always demanding that people respect them yet they don't give a damn about respect others privacy rights when in public bathrooms or their first amendment rights. This is a bridge too far and a battle they will lose. In the words of our new glorious president "believe me on that."

 

I'm not understanding what science has to do with, again. Simple identifiers are a device of large group interaction. A very essential tool for ordinary survival. Friend or foe, male or female, known or unknown. Very basic stuff, common to all social mammals.

 

Well, you can find the 'mental illness or not mental illness' question supported on both ends of the spectrum.

http://www.freakingnews.com/pictures/77500/Ugly-Woman--77608.jpg

Homosexuality used to be classified as a mental illness. When the libs started promoting it as normal and healthy behavior it was taken off the mental defective list.

http://time.com/4424589/being-transgender-is-not-a-mental-disorder-study/

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...atrist-transgender-mental-disorder-sex-change

The libs seem to be on a different wavelength than the rest when it comes to defining a woman...

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-xvzzYVgmIkg/Vo0747UMPWI/AAAAAAAH5d0/Cu-x6zrMbT4/s1600/2.jpg

 

There are kindergardens in Sweden that only use gender neutral pronouns when addressing the kids. There are even parents who do this to their kids.

Frikken disgusting.

 

Since we can't exactly check people down below, if they physically look like a man or physically look like a woman I typically refer to them by the pronouns they appear as.

For all we know though a trans female could be passing really well as a woman and you'd never know that you were calling a biological male "she" anyways. So what does it matter?

 

Well, I'm not going to tell poeple this is wrong in their own homes, it isn't abusive. But in schools, that's stupid.

 

Although it doesn't really matter.....I vote for "chick with a dick".

 

In the context of our discussion, without identifiers being based in science they are arbitrary and anecdotal.

 

Other - how can this possibly matter. You can call yourself a chef if you aren't a chef. I don't care. None of my business.

 

I know two people who did this to their kids. Both had sons (why is it always boys who are subjected to this stuff?) they wanted to be 'gender neutral'. Both went out of their way to clad said boys in florals and pink (seriously) and provide the little tykes with dollies and fluffy toys etc. Both avoided giving their boys guns, trucks, mechano sets, etc.

 

Survival tactics for social mammals. You can call these devices 'anecdotal' if you like, but you're actually referring to the reality of all social mammals and millions of years of conditioning.

With respect, it does seem as though you're trying to discuss a completely different topic, Rob. You seem to be saying that social identifiers for a particular species are 'arbitrary'? Which is both probably true and utterly irrelevant to my point. Whatever you want to call these identifiers, arbitrary, scientific, funny, crazy, good, bad, whatever .... they exist. Their 'quality' is not under discussion.

 

My mother is working in child care and the boss had pulled her into a room to have a chat, telling her she must not call the girls "princess". Lmao.

Also, there apparently is this one girl, at the kindergarden where my mother works, whose parents have given them strict instructions to only address their daughter with gender neutral pronouns. Poor little girl.

I guess it happens to every kid, both boys and girls. Sadly. Luckily I was born exactly one generation before all this gender bs reached the kindergardens. Close call.

 

You do understand that only a quack would prescribe such a treatment, right?

How the hell you got a question out of that sentence I have no idea.

So you figure delusions ought to be catered to if they're seriously held. Have I got that right?

Why the hell would I want to get within shouting distance of such a miscreant?

Not if we listen to people like you, we won't.

 

That should have read “The thread is just asking about naming”. The point is that you’re introducing new, largely separate questions.

 

Nope. Science says if you have the parts and chromosomes of a man then you're a man.

 

Not really, no. It's impossible to isolate them from each other and have a worthwhile discussion.

 

I don’t think it’s quite that simply. The OP did ask a question which taken on its merits can be asked completely independently (which is what I did). As I said, the answer to that specific question really doesn’t matter. Of course, we all know that the OP only raised that question as cover for yet another negatively-aimed thread about the wider transgender/transsexual issues but that for some reason they (like a lot of people) are unwilling or unable to address directly. It was a light, jokey (theoretically) thread designed to build of the general “Isn’t all this silly” propaganda so that can be used to simply dismiss any difficult questions or complex circumstances in the area they simply don’t want to (and can’t) handle.

You can’t isolate the question of naming from the wider issue but only because it’s a comparatively minor consequences of it. The OP attempted to isolate it and I thank you for helping me demonstrate that fact.

 

Sure it can, but not intelligently.

Of course it matters, at least in any instance where someone who is obviously a man insists on being addressed as a woman by someone who is not inclined to cater to his insanity.

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

 

But what if you mistake a man for a woman and vice versa? We don't get to look at people's genitals or their DNA to be sure, so how can you really know?

 

Isn’t your answer to the OP question a simple “No”? You don’t have to expand the question to give that answer.

How two individuals manage their interactions is important to them. The generic question in the OP isn’t important.

Sorry, it was a left over from an edit. I made the intended point better at the end of the previous paragraph.

 

So what?

I don't suppose it occurs to you that by the same reasoning, the question of whether a black person should be called a (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) could just as easily be deemed unimportant.

 

So the OP question can be answered independently of any other questions intelligently, which you were denying. Try to keep up.

Typically it's only important to the speaker and the target. That's how sometimes black people are called that without any offence (often, though not always, by other black people). The issues there have less to do with the actual word than the intent behind it.

 

Please, the record clearly indicates I was doing no such thing.

Sure, until propaganda campaigns and/or public policy begin to form on the basis of such interactions in aggregate.

Obviously. The point being...?

 

When it comes to science then a boy is a boy and a girl is a girl. If you disguise yourself as the opposite sex and didn't tell me then I would assume that you're that sex. If however I catch on or you tell me outright then I'm going to call you by your sex. Call me rude but my morals won't allow me to call you something that denies science.