On Thu, 21 Apr 2022 18:05:55 -0400, Quinn C
<lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:

>* CDB:
>
>> On 4/20/2022 8:59 PM, Quinn C wrote:
>>> * CDB:
>>>> Quinn C wrote:
>>>>> * CDB, the American:
>>>>>> Quinn C wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> And if you still think it's about "a word", I guess you're a
>>>>>>> lost cause.
>>
>>>>>> Thank you for making it clear that your "request" is in fact a
>>>>>> threat.
>>
>>>>> I have no idea where you get that from.
>>
>>>>> A threat of not talking to you any more? Well, thanks for valuing
>>>>> me that much.
>>
>>>> I didn't say it was an effective threat.
>>
>>> It still sees like a wrong usage to me. More obviously so than when
>>> my ex said I shouldn't threaten her with divorce, and I said that's
>>> not a "threat", because I wouldn't do it in order to hurt her, but to
>>> get myself out of harm's way.
>>
>>>> What did you mean by "CDB, the American" up above? Shall I act
>>>> outraged? I have been taken for an American many times, sometimes
>>>> by people from other parts of the world, sometimes by Americans. I
>>>> have never been bovvered.
>>
>>> It's supposed to be a closer match to the false attribution of an
>>> identity that's the subject of debate, with a term that's not
>>> objectionable on its own.
>>
>>> I do expect that it'd get annoying if it was repeated by various
>>> people with the regularity of pronouns, and even more so when people
>>> pick up on it and blame you for the havoc Americans wreak in the
>>> world, assume that you probably carry a gun around and such. But
>>> still, Canadian and American may not be different enough as
>>> identities to compare to genders. I could try "Putin-sympathizer" or
>>> something.
>>
>> Since you know, or ought to know, that that is untrue, calling me a
>> putinista would be a lie. I would probably post in to contradict it,
>> since it would be a lie that could damage my reputation, but I would not
>> be all of a doodah. I think I would consider the source.
>
>And calling me a man (or implying it by using "he") is a lie to me,

You have joined PTD in using the word "lie" incorrectly.

A lie is a statement that is made with full knowledge that it is
untrue. Using "he" to refer to you is not a lie. Referring to you as
a man is not a lie.

They both might be misrepresentations of how you see yourself, but
they are not lies.

>I was tempted to also point out that the usage of "he" leads to some
>confusing statements, like "Quinn? He's just gone to the ladies' room",
>"he's looking for a new bra, over there" or "he's out with his lesbian
>group", but I actually kind of enjoy these, because they underline that
>gender is fake.

What is confusing about any of those statements? If any of those
statements are made by someone when not in your presence, they would
seem to be perfectly understandable to anyone who knows you.

Surely you do not expect your co-workers to use your preferred
pronouns when referring to you but not in your presence.

--

Tony Cooper - Orlando Florida

I read and post to this group as a form of entertainment.

On 4/21/2022 6:05 PM, Quinn C wrote:
> CDB:
>> Quinn C wrote:
>>> * CDB:
>>>> Quinn C wrote:
>>>>> CDB, the American:
>>>>>> Quinn C wrote:

>>>>>>> And if you still think it's about "a word", I guess
>>>>>>> you're a lost cause.

>>>>>> Thank you for making it clear that your "request" is in
>>>>>> fact a threat.

>>>>> I have no idea where you get that from.

>>>>> A threat of not talking to you any more? Well, thanks for
>>>>> valuing me that much.

>>>> I didn't say it was an effective threat.

>>> It still sees like a wrong usage to me. More obviously so than
>>> when my ex said I shouldn't threaten her with divorce, and I said
>>> that's not a "threat", because I wouldn't do it in order to hurt
>>> her, but to get myself out of harm's way.

>>>> What did you mean by "CDB, the American" up above? Shall I
>>>> act outraged? I have been taken for an American many times,
>>>> sometimes by people from other parts of the world, sometimes by
>>>> Americans. I have never been bovvered.

>>> It's supposed to be a closer match to the false attribution of
>>> an identity that's the subject of debate, with a term that's not
>>> objectionable on its own.

>>> I do expect that it'd get annoying if it was repeated by various
>>> people with the regularity of pronouns, and even more so when
>>> people pick up on it and blame you for the havoc Americans wreak
>>> in the world, assume that you probably carry a gun around and
>>> such. But still, Canadian and American may not be different
>>> enough as identities to compare to genders. I could try
>>> "Putin-sympathizer" or something.

>> Since you know, or ought to know, that that is untrue, calling me
>> a putinista would be a lie. I would probably post in to contradict
>> it, since it would be a lie that could damage my reputation, but I
>> would not be all of a doodah. I think I would consider the
>> source.

> And calling me a man (or implying it by using "he") is a lie to me,
> because I'm not a man in what I consider the normal everyday sense
> (as opposed to medical or legal senses), which involves looking and
> acting like a man.

What a piece of work you are!

> I was tempted to also point out that the usage of "he" leads to some
> confusing statements, like "Quinn? He's just gone to the ladies'
> room", "he's looking for a new bra, over there" or "he's out with his
> lesbian group", but I actually kind of enjoy these, because they
> underline that gender is fake.

Have I disappointed you, then, with my consistent use of your preferred
pronouns? My objection is still what it has always been: I decline to
be forced into something that I am demonstrably willing to do out of
courtesy or sympathy, or for some other relatively inoffensive motive.

>> You seem to be relevance-challenged in picking your comparisons.

> I won't be able to pick one you'll accept if you're not ready to.

Have to get my mind right? Sure, Captain.

>> You may not like some of the things I say, but IMO none of them are
>> untrue. I don't think you can credibly claim they are, and I'm
>> certain you can't say - credibly - that I know they are.

> Why should I believe what you claim about yourself? That's the main
> point I'm making here.

Well, why didn't you say that was your main point? In fact I am
remarkably frank with this group; now that I'm old I no longer see much
point in lying, and doing that here would be a little like cheating at
solitaire.

That being said, I have no mandate, and no wish, to make you believe
what I say. My "main point" is that you have no such mandate either.

> Interestingly, if you classify me as a man, that is also solely based
> on my declarations, so I wonder how you pick which of my statements
> to accept and which to reject.

AFAICR, I have accepted your statements of fact; it's your statements of
claim that I don't accept - your attempts to contol the people around
you. Me, for instance.

* Tony Cooper:

> On Thu, 21 Apr 2022 18:05:55 -0400, Quinn C
> <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>
>>* CDB:
>>
>>> On 4/20/2022 8:59 PM, Quinn C wrote:
>>>> * CDB:
>>>>> Quinn C wrote:
>>>>>> * CDB, the American:
>>>>>>> Quinn C wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>> And if you still think it's about "a word", I guess you're a
>>>>>>>> lost cause.
>>>
>>>>>>> Thank you for making it clear that your "request" is in fact a
>>>>>>> threat.
>>>
>>>>>> I have no idea where you get that from.
>>>
>>>>>> A threat of not talking to you any more? Well, thanks for valuing
>>>>>> me that much.
>>>
>>>>> I didn't say it was an effective threat.
>>>
>>>> It still sees like a wrong usage to me. More obviously so than when
>>>> my ex said I shouldn't threaten her with divorce, and I said that's
>>>> not a "threat", because I wouldn't do it in order to hurt her, but to
>>>> get myself out of harm's way.
>>>
>>>>> What did you mean by "CDB, the American" up above? Shall I act
>>>>> outraged? I have been taken for an American many times, sometimes
>>>>> by people from other parts of the world, sometimes by Americans. I
>>>>> have never been bovvered.
>>>
>>>> It's supposed to be a closer match to the false attribution of an
>>>> identity that's the subject of debate, with a term that's not
>>>> objectionable on its own.
>>>
>>>> I do expect that it'd get annoying if it was repeated by various
>>>> people with the regularity of pronouns, and even more so when people
>>>> pick up on it and blame you for the havoc Americans wreak in the
>>>> world, assume that you probably carry a gun around and such. But
>>>> still, Canadian and American may not be different enough as
>>>> identities to compare to genders. I could try "Putin-sympathizer" or
>>>> something.
>>>
>>> Since you know, or ought to know, that that is untrue, calling me a
>>> putinista would be a lie. I would probably post in to contradict it,
>>> since it would be a lie that could damage my reputation, but I would not
>>> be all of a doodah. I think I would consider the source.
>>
>>And calling me a man (or implying it by using "he") is a lie to me,
>
> You have joined PTD in using the word "lie" incorrectly.
>
> A lie is a statement that is made with full knowledge that it is
> untrue. Using "he" to refer to you is not a lie. Referring to you as
> a man is not a lie.

No. You're taking my statement out of context. I have joined CDB in the
above, echoing his usage. Me calling him Putin-sympathizer is certainly
no lie by your "proper" definition, because I don't know either way. I
can only trust his claim, or make guesses from other things he said, but
I don't know him well enough to be certain.

> They both might be misrepresentations of how you see yourself, but
> they are not lies.
>
>>I was tempted to also point out that the usage of "he" leads to some
>>confusing statements, like "Quinn? He's just gone to the ladies' room",
>>"he's looking for a new bra, over there" or "he's out with his lesbian
>>group", but I actually kind of enjoy these, because they underline that
>>gender is fake.
>
> What is confusing about any of those statements?

Really? I recently misinterpreted a headline as saying "Putin helping
Ukraine with weapons". Was it understandable? Perfectly. Was it
confusing? Absolutely, to me. But maybe your mind works differently.

> If any of those
> statements are made by someone when not in your presence, they would
> seem to be perfectly understandable to anyone who knows you.

If they know me, maybe so - because they'd recognize that I'm more woman
than man.

> Surely you do not expect your co-workers to use your preferred
> pronouns when referring to you but not in your presence.

Of course I expect that. I don't think of them as a bunch of assholes.
Your experience with cow-orkers may vary.

--
Quinn C
My pronouns are they/them
(or other gender-neutral ones)

On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 6:06:04 PM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:

> And calling me a man (or implying it by using "he") is a lie to me,
> because I'm not a man in what I consider the normal everyday sense (as
> opposed to medical or legal senses), which involves looking and acting
> like a man.

(Does it?)

> I was tempted to also point out that the usage of "he" leads to some
> confusing statements, like "Quinn? He's just gone to the ladies' room",
> "he's looking for a new bra, over there" or "he's out with his lesbian
> group", but I actually kind of enjoy these, because they underline that
> gender is fake.

Each of those statements seems utterly unexceptionable.

On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 7:49:17 AM UTC-4, CDB wrote:

> > And calling me a man (or implying it by using "he") is a lie to me,
> > because I'm not a man in what I consider the normal everyday sense
> > (as opposed to medical or legal senses), which involves looking and
> > acting like a man.
>
> What a piece of work you are!

Kindly continue the quotation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_a_piece_of_work_is_a_man#Stage_productions

Interesting stuff higher up about variants.

On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 09:09:26 -0400, Quinn C
<lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:

>* Tony Cooper:
>
>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2022 18:05:55 -0400, Quinn C
>> <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>>
>>>* CDB:
>>>
>>>> On 4/20/2022 8:59 PM, Quinn C wrote:
>>>>> * CDB:
>>>>>> Quinn C wrote:
>>>>>>> * CDB, the American:
>>>>>>>> Quinn C wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And if you still think it's about "a word", I guess you're a
>>>>>>>>> lost cause.
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thank you for making it clear that your "request" is in fact a
>>>>>>>> threat.
>>>>
>>>>>>> I have no idea where you get that from.
>>>>
>>>>>>> A threat of not talking to you any more? Well, thanks for valuing
>>>>>>> me that much.
>>>>
>>>>>> I didn't say it was an effective threat.
>>>>
>>>>> It still sees like a wrong usage to me. More obviously so than when
>>>>> my ex said I shouldn't threaten her with divorce, and I said that's
>>>>> not a "threat", because I wouldn't do it in order to hurt her, but to
>>>>> get myself out of harm's way.
>>>>
>>>>>> What did you mean by "CDB, the American" up above? Shall I act
>>>>>> outraged? I have been taken for an American many times, sometimes
>>>>>> by people from other parts of the world, sometimes by Americans. I
>>>>>> have never been bovvered.
>>>>
>>>>> It's supposed to be a closer match to the false attribution of an
>>>>> identity that's the subject of debate, with a term that's not
>>>>> objectionable on its own.
>>>>
>>>>> I do expect that it'd get annoying if it was repeated by various
>>>>> people with the regularity of pronouns, and even more so when people
>>>>> pick up on it and blame you for the havoc Americans wreak in the
>>>>> world, assume that you probably carry a gun around and such. But
>>>>> still, Canadian and American may not be different enough as
>>>>> identities to compare to genders. I could try "Putin-sympathizer" or
>>>>> something.
>>>>
>>>> Since you know, or ought to know, that that is untrue, calling me a
>>>> putinista would be a lie. I would probably post in to contradict it,
>>>> since it would be a lie that could damage my reputation, but I would not
>>>> be all of a doodah. I think I would consider the source.
>>>
>>>And calling me a man (or implying it by using "he") is a lie to me,
>>
>> You have joined PTD in using the word "lie" incorrectly.
>>
>> A lie is a statement that is made with full knowledge that it is
>> untrue. Using "he" to refer to you is not a lie. Referring to you as
>> a man is not a lie.
>
>No. You're taking my statement out of context.

All context was retained.

> I have joined CDB in the
>above, echoing his usage. Me calling him Putin-sympathizer is certainly
>no lie by your "proper" definition, because I don't know either way. I
>can only trust his claim, or make guesses from other things he said, but
>I don't know him well enough to be certain.

Of course it's a lie. Claiming that you don't know someone well
enough to not label them a Nazi, a serial killer, a pedophile, or a
rapist is preposterous.

But, OK, I'll play your game. You are a manly-man who is employed as
as a male model and spokesman for Carhartt rugged outdoor wear and a
former hockey player, known as an "enforcer", for the Quebec
Nordiques.

All the stuff you've posted in the past about your gender issues is a
deliberate spoof campaign started as a bet at a TERF club meeting to
see if you could convince the readers of this newsgroup of the
authenticity of your claims.

I can make this claim because I don't know you well enough to be
certain it is not true, I can't trust your claims because I can't
personally verify them, and I am thus able to make wild guesses.

Is this how you want to play the game?
>
>> They both might be misrepresentations of how you see yourself, but
>> they are not lies.
>>
>>>I was tempted to also point out that the usage of "he" leads to some
>>>confusing statements, like "Quinn? He's just gone to the ladies' room",
>>>"he's looking for a new bra, over there" or "he's out with his lesbian
>>>group", but I actually kind of enjoy these, because they underline that
>>>gender is fake.
>>
>> What is confusing about any of those statements?
>
>Really? I recently misinterpreted a headline as saying "Putin helping
>Ukraine with weapons". Was it understandable? Perfectly. Was it
>confusing? Absolutely, to me. But maybe your mind works differently.

That's the best you can come up? What has it to do with my question?

>> If any of those
>> statements are made by someone when not in your presence, they would
>> seem to be perfectly understandable to anyone who knows you.
>
>If they know me, maybe so - because they'd recognize that I'm more woman
>than man.
>
>> Surely you do not expect your co-workers to use your preferred
>> pronouns when referring to you but not in your presence.
>
>Of course I expect that. I don't think of them as a bunch of assholes.
>Your experience with cow-orkers may vary.

So working with you is a 24/7 responsibility. Not only are your
coworkers expected to adhere to your rule book in your presence, but
must follow those rules even when away from work and engaged in a game
of pinochle with their non-work friends lest they be "assholes".

--

Tony Cooper - Orlando Florida

I read and post to this group as a form of entertainment.

* Peter T. Daniels:

> On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 6:06:04 PM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
>
>> And calling me a man (or implying it by using "he") is a lie to me,
>> because I'm not a man in what I consider the normal everyday sense (as
>> opposed to medical or legal senses), which involves looking and acting
>> like a man.
>
> (Does it?)

To me, that's not only what I consider the most reasonable, but also
what I observe in others, who never once objected to me going to the
ladies' and now mostly spontaneously classify me as woman.

>> I was tempted to also point out that the usage of "he" leads to some
>> confusing statements, like "Quinn? He's just gone to the ladies' room",
>> "he's looking for a new bra, over there" or "he's out with his lesbian
>> group", but I actually kind of enjoy these, because they underline that
>> gender is fake.
>
> Each of those statements seems utterly unexceptionable.

No incongruence with your world knowledge? "The cat is barking" is
completely normal, too?

--
Quinn C
My pronouns are they/them
(or other gender-neutral ones)

On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 10:27:06 AM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
> * Peter T. Daniels:
> > On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 6:06:04 PM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:

> >> And calling me a man (or implying it by using "he") is a lie to me,
> >> because I'm not a man in what I consider the normal everyday sense (as
> >> opposed to medical or legal senses), which involves looking and acting
> >> like a man.
> > (Does it?)
>
> To me, that's not only what I consider the most reasonable, but also
> what I observe in others, who never once objected to me going to the
> ladies' and now mostly spontaneously classify me as woman.

That's a statement about you rather than about the language.

Though if a trans-woman still has male plumbing, you'd think she'd
find it a lot more convenient to go to a men's room with urinals than
to a ladies' with only sit-down toilets. (Unless, of course, trans-women
are so utterly caught up in the gender norms of the 20th century that
they prefer skirts and pantyhose and girdles ("Spanx") and all that to
the pants (BrE "trousers"?) that have pretty much taken over women's
attire in business, cf. Hillary Clinton.)

> >> I was tempted to also point out that the usage of "he" leads to some
> >> confusing statements, like "Quinn? He's just gone to the ladies' room",
> >> "he's looking for a new bra, over there" or "he's out with his lesbian
> >> group", but I actually kind of enjoy these, because they underline that
> >> gender is fake.
> > Each of those statements seems utterly unexceptionable.
>
> No incongruence with your world knowledge? "The cat is barking" is
> completely normal, too?

We know that the word for a cat noise is "meow" and that "bark"
is the word for a seal noise.

Whether those sentences refer (or allude) to Q or anyone else,
their meaning is perfectly clear.

On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 10:26:54 -0400, Quinn C
<lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:

>* Peter T. Daniels:
>
>> On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 6:06:04 PM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
>>
>>> And calling me a man (or implying it by using "he") is a lie to me,
>>> because I'm not a man in what I consider the normal everyday sense (as
>>> opposed to medical or legal senses), which involves looking and acting
>>> like a man.
>>
>> (Does it?)
>
>To me, that's not only what I consider the most reasonable, but also
>what I observe in others, who never once objected to me going to the
>ladies' and now mostly spontaneously classify me as woman.
>
>>> I was tempted to also point out that the usage of "he" leads to some
>>> confusing statements, like "Quinn? He's just gone to the ladies' room",
>>> "he's looking for a new bra, over there" or "he's out with his lesbian
>>> group", but I actually kind of enjoy these, because they underline that
>>> gender is fake.
>>
>> Each of those statements seems utterly unexceptionable.
>
>No incongruence with your world knowledge? "The cat is barking" is
>completely normal, too?

The sentences are perfectly normal and understandable because they
refer to Quinn.

The sentence "Judy? He's just gone to the ladies' room" might be
confusing if lifted out of context and if we don't know who Judy is.

--

Tony Cooper - Orlando Florida

I read and post to this group as a form of entertainment.

On 4/22/2022 9:23 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> CDB wrote:

>>> And calling me a man (or implying it by using "he") is a lie to
>>> me, because I'm not a man in what I consider the normal everyday
>>> sense (as opposed to medical or legal senses), which involves
>>> looking and acting like a man.

>> What a piece of work you are!

> Kindly continue the quotation.

I was saving that for the next round.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_a_piece_of_work_is_a_man#Stage_productions

>
>
Interesting stuff higher up about variants.

I tend to hear it in the Ragni/Rado version from _Hair_. I have to
remember to put the article back in if I'm quoting Shakespeare.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fstxNFdQWZQ

On 4/22/2022 9:09 AM, Quinn C wrote:
> * Tony Cooper:
>> Quinn C <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>>> CDB:
>>>> Quinn C wrote:
>>>>> * CDB:
>>>>>> Quinn C wrote:
>>>>>>> * CDB, the American:
>>>>>>>> Quinn C wrote:

>>>>>>>>> And if you still think it's about "a word", I guess
>>>>>>>>> you're a lost cause.

>>>>>>>> Thank you for making it clear that your "request" is in
>>>>>>>> fact a threat.

>>>>>>> I have no idea where you get that from.

>>>>>>> A threat of not talking to you any more? Well, thanks for
>>>>>>> valuing me that much.

>>>>>> I didn't say it was an effective threat.

>>>>> It still sees like a wrong usage to me. More obviously so
>>>>> than when my ex said I shouldn't threaten her with divorce,
>>>>> and I said that's not a "threat", because I wouldn't do it in
>>>>> order to hurt her, but to get myself out of harm's way.

>>>>>> What did you mean by "CDB, the American" up above? Shall I
>>>>>> act outraged? I have been taken for an American many
>>>>>> times, sometimes by people from other parts of the world,
>>>>>> sometimes by Americans. I have never been bovvered.

>>>>> It's supposed to be a closer match to the false attribution
>>>>> of an identity that's the subject of debate, with a term
>>>>> that's not objectionable on its own.

>>>>> I do expect that it'd get annoying if it was repeated by
>>>>> various people with the regularity of pronouns, and even more
>>>>> so when people pick up on it and blame you for the havoc
>>>>> Americans wreak in the world, assume that you probably carry
>>>>> a gun around and such. But still, Canadian and American may
>>>>> not be different enough as identities to compare to genders.
>>>>> I could try "Putin-sympathizer" or something.

>>>> Since you know, or ought to know, that that is untrue, calling
>>>> me a putinista would be a lie. I would probably post in to
>>>> contradict it, since it would be a lie that could damage my
>>>> reputation, but I would not be all of a doodah. I think I
>>>> would consider the source.

>>> And calling me a man (or implying it by using "he") is a lie to
>>> me,
>>
>> You have joined PTD in using the word "lie" incorrectly.

>> A lie is a statement that is made with full knowledge that it is
>> untrue. Using "he" to refer to you is not a lie. Referring to you
>> as a man is not a lie.

> No. You're taking my statement out of context. I have joined CDB in
> the above, echoing his usage. Me calling him Putin-sympathizer is
> certainly no lie by your "proper" definition, because I don't know
> either way. I can only trust his claim, or make guesses from other
> things he said, but I don't know him well enough to be certain.

You are not echoing my use, because you know, or ought to know, my
opinion of that monster. I have said things about the attack on Ukraine
that make it quite clear. And I think I once said I was undecided
whether to call him an unappetising cheese dish or a French prostitute.
That was not an affectionate sally.

>> They both might be misrepresentations of how you see yourself, but
>> they are not lies.

>>> I was tempted to also point out that the usage of "he" leads to
>>> some confusing statements, like "Quinn? He's just gone to the
>>> ladies' room", "he's looking for a new bra, over there" or "he's
>>> out with his lesbian group", but I actually kind of enjoy these,
>>> because they underline that gender is fake.

>> What is confusing about any of those statements?

> Really? I recently misinterpreted a headline as saying "Putin
> helping Ukraine with weapons". Was it understandable? Perfectly. Was
> it confusing? Absolutely, to me. But maybe your mind works
> differently.

>> If any of those statements are made by someone when not in your
>> presence, they would seem to be perfectly understandable to anyone
>> who knows you.

> If they know me, maybe so - because they'd recognize that I'm more
> woman than man.

>> Surely you do not expect your co-workers to use your preferred
>> pronouns when referring to you but not in your presence.

> Of course I expect that. I don't think of them as a bunch of
> assholes. Your experience with cow-orkers may vary.

On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 12:02:44 PM UTC-4, CDB wrote:
> On 4/22/2022 9:23 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > CDB wrote:

> >>> And calling me a man (or implying it by using "he") is a lie to
> >>> me, because I'm not a man in what I consider the normal everyday
> >>> sense (as opposed to medical or legal senses), which involves
> >>> looking and acting like a man.
> >> What a piece of work you are!
> > Kindly continue the quotation.
>
> I was saving that for the next round.
>
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_a_piece_of_work_is_a_man#Stage_productions
> > Interesting stuff higher up about variants.
>
> I tend to hear it in the Ragni/Rado version from _Hair_. I have to
> remember to put the article back in if I'm quoting Shakespeare.

Meaning you didn't look at the discussion of variants at the top
of the article.

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fstxNFdQWZQ

* CDB:

> On 4/21/2022 6:05 PM, Quinn C wrote:
>> CDB:
>>> Quinn C wrote:
>>>> * CDB:
>>>>> Quinn C wrote:
>>>>>> CDB, the American:
>>>>>>> Quinn C wrote:
>
>>>>>>>> And if you still think it's about "a word", I guess
>>>>>>>> you're a lost cause.
>
>>>>>>> Thank you for making it clear that your "request" is in
>>>>>>> fact a threat.
>
>>>>>> I have no idea where you get that from.
>
>>>>>> A threat of not talking to you any more? Well, thanks for
>>>>>> valuing me that much.
>
>>>>> I didn't say it was an effective threat.
>
>>>> It still sees like a wrong usage to me. More obviously so than
>>>> when my ex said I shouldn't threaten her with divorce, and I said
>>>> that's not a "threat", because I wouldn't do it in order to hurt
>>>> her, but to get myself out of harm's way.
>
>>>>> What did you mean by "CDB, the American" up above? Shall I
>>>>> act outraged? I have been taken for an American many times,
>>>>> sometimes by people from other parts of the world, sometimes by
>>>>> Americans. I have never been bovvered.
>
>>>> It's supposed to be a closer match to the false attribution of
>>>> an identity that's the subject of debate, with a term that's not
>>>> objectionable on its own.
>
>>>> I do expect that it'd get annoying if it was repeated by various
>>>> people with the regularity of pronouns, and even more so when
>>>> people pick up on it and blame you for the havoc Americans wreak
>>>> in the world, assume that you probably carry a gun around and
>>>> such. But still, Canadian and American may not be different
>>>> enough as identities to compare to genders. I could try
>>>> "Putin-sympathizer" or something.
>
>>> Since you know, or ought to know, that that is untrue, calling me
>>> a putinista would be a lie. I would probably post in to contradict
>>> it, since it would be a lie that could damage my reputation, but I
>>> would not be all of a doodah. I think I would consider the
>>> source.
>
>> And calling me a man (or implying it by using "he") is a lie to me,
>> because I'm not a man in what I consider the normal everyday sense
>> (as opposed to medical or legal senses), which involves looking and
>> acting like a man.
>
> What a piece of work you are!
>
>> I was tempted to also point out that the usage of "he" leads to some
>> confusing statements, like "Quinn? He's just gone to the ladies'
>> room", "he's looking for a new bra, over there" or "he's out with his
>> lesbian group", but I actually kind of enjoy these, because they
>> underline that gender is fake.
>
> Have I disappointed you, then, with my consistent use of your preferred
> pronouns? My objection is still what it has always been: I decline to
> be forced into something that I am demonstrably willing to do out of
> courtesy or sympathy, or for some other relatively inoffensive motive.
>
>>> You seem to be relevance-challenged in picking your comparisons.
>
>> I won't be able to pick one you'll accept if you're not ready to.
>
> Have to get my mind right? Sure, Captain.
>
>>> You may not like some of the things I say, but IMO none of them are
>>> untrue. I don't think you can credibly claim they are, and I'm
>>> certain you can't say - credibly - that I know they are.
>
>> Why should I believe what you claim about yourself? That's the main
>> point I'm making here.
>
> Well, why didn't you say that was your main point?

With this specific comparison. Other comparisons made other points.

> In fact I am
> remarkably frank with this group; now that I'm old I no longer see much
> point in lying, and doing that here would be a little like cheating at
> solitaire.
>
> That being said, I have no mandate, and no wish, to make you believe
> what I say. My "main point" is that you have no such mandate either.

Sure. I can't make you believe what my legal sex registration is nor
what my gender is. You chose to believe one but not the other. In any
case, not believing me shows you don't think highly of me.

It should irk you to be called a Putin sympathizer when you're not one.
Likewise, it irks me to be called a man when I'm not one, by my
understanding of the word.

I know you're using the word with a different definition, but that means
you side with a worldview that is tied to my oppression, that makes
bathroom laws and such possible. There's the parallel to the N-word you
wouldn't see.

>> Interestingly, if you classify me as a man, that is also solely based
>> on my declarations, so I wonder how you pick which of my statements
>> to accept and which to reject.
>
> AFAICR, I have accepted your statements of fact; it's your statements of
> claim that I don't accept

This is where "disrespect" comes into play: you accepted what I reported
others saying about me (by assigning me a gender based on my sex), but
not my own opinion on my gender.

If I had told you that my schoolmates called me a teacher's pet and a
grind*, but I wasn't, I just loved learning, and you chose to side with
the others' judgment, that's a similar feeling.

> - your attempts to contol the people around
> you. Me, for instance.

Asking for equal consideration without sex discrimination is not
"controlling" people. You seem to have fallen deeply into an ideological
trap.

____
* "Grind" is marked archaic, but I can't seem to find a modern word for
someone who's unpopular because they work hard and get better results,
making their classmates look bad in comparison.

--
They're telling the truth. [...] I know what you mean. There's
another truth that they're not telling. But newspapers never
do, that's not what they're for.
-- James Baldwin, Giovanni's Room

* Peter T. Daniels:

> On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 10:27:06 AM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
>> * Peter T. Daniels:
>>> On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 6:06:04 PM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
>
>>>> And calling me a man (or implying it by using "he") is a lie to me,
>>>> because I'm not a man in what I consider the normal everyday sense (as
>>>> opposed to medical or legal senses), which involves looking and acting
>>>> like a man.
>>> (Does it?)
>>
>> To me, that's not only what I consider the most reasonable, but also
>> what I observe in others, who never once objected to me going to the
>> ladies' and now mostly spontaneously classify me as woman.
>
> That's a statement about you rather than about the language.

Language is supposed to reflect reality, no? "Woman" and "she" describe
me better to an observer than "man" and "he". I pose that "non-binary"
and "they" is even more accurate.

That's why new pronouns are needed when a new gender is introduced. New
words for new things.

It's really rather simple, and that's why all the language complaints in
the end burn down to people not accepting identity.

> Though if a trans-woman still has male plumbing, you'd think she'd
> find it a lot more convenient to go to a men's room with urinals than
> to a ladies' with only sit-down toilets. (Unless, of course, trans-women
> are so utterly caught up in the gender norms of the 20th century that
> they prefer skirts and pantyhose and girdles ("Spanx") and all that

No, they're caught up in the prevailing norm that peeing standing up is
a masculine behavior. Just like the millions of men who refuse to sit
down when there's no urinal, and trans men who buy packers with a
urinating function.

I haven't peed standing at my own or anyone's house since I'm 13 or so,
long before I seriously switched gender identity. It was enough that I
didn't feel I have to prove my masculinity by doing it standing. The
same is true of many other behaviors of mine.

> to
> the pants (BrE "trousers"?) that have pretty much taken over women's
> attire in business, cf. Hillary Clinton.)

Who accordingly looks like a legacy of second-wave feminism. Which is
fine at her age, but younger women have other ideas. No need to imitate
men's attire to be taken seriously.

>>>> I was tempted to also point out that the usage of "he" leads to some
>>>> confusing statements, like "Quinn? He's just gone to the ladies' room",
>>>> "he's looking for a new bra, over there" or "he's out with his lesbian
>>>> group", but I actually kind of enjoy these, because they underline that
>>>> gender is fake.
>>> Each of those statements seems utterly unexceptionable.
>>
>> No incongruence with your world knowledge? "The cat is barking" is
>> completely normal, too?
>
> We know that the word for a cat noise is "meow" and that "bark"
> is the word for a seal noise.

And "the cat is making seal noises" doesn't strike you as odd?

Is not "what the speaker called a cat is actually a seal" one theory of
how to resolve the confusion caused by the statement?

> Whether those sentences refer (or allude) to Q or anyone else,
> their meaning is perfectly clear.

Hello? World knowledge, once more?

I thought I was using "confusing" in the basic sense, which has to do
with ideas that don't fit together, not clarity of language.

--
Quinn C
My pronouns are they/them
(or other gender-neutral ones)

* Tony Cooper:

> On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 09:09:26 -0400, Quinn C
> <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>
>>* Tony Cooper:
>>
>>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2022 18:05:55 -0400, Quinn C
>>> <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>>>
>>>>* CDB:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/20/2022 8:59 PM, Quinn C wrote:
>>>>>> * CDB:
>>>>>>> Quinn C wrote:
>>>>>>>> * CDB, the American:
>>>>>>>>> Quinn C wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And if you still think it's about "a word", I guess you're a
>>>>>>>>>> lost cause.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thank you for making it clear that your "request" is in fact a
>>>>>>>>> threat.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have no idea where you get that from.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A threat of not talking to you any more? Well, thanks for valuing
>>>>>>>> me that much.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> I didn't say it was an effective threat.
>>>>>
>>>>>> It still sees like a wrong usage to me. More obviously so than when
>>>>>> my ex said I shouldn't threaten her with divorce, and I said that's
>>>>>> not a "threat", because I wouldn't do it in order to hurt her, but to
>>>>>> get myself out of harm's way.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> What did you mean by "CDB, the American" up above? Shall I act
>>>>>>> outraged? I have been taken for an American many times, sometimes
>>>>>>> by people from other parts of the world, sometimes by Americans. I
>>>>>>> have never been bovvered.
>>>>>
>>>>>> It's supposed to be a closer match to the false attribution of an
>>>>>> identity that's the subject of debate, with a term that's not
>>>>>> objectionable on its own.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I do expect that it'd get annoying if it was repeated by various
>>>>>> people with the regularity of pronouns, and even more so when people
>>>>>> pick up on it and blame you for the havoc Americans wreak in the
>>>>>> world, assume that you probably carry a gun around and such. But
>>>>>> still, Canadian and American may not be different enough as
>>>>>> identities to compare to genders. I could try "Putin-sympathizer" or
>>>>>> something.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since you know, or ought to know, that that is untrue, calling me a
>>>>> putinista would be a lie. I would probably post in to contradict it,
>>>>> since it would be a lie that could damage my reputation, but I would not
>>>>> be all of a doodah. I think I would consider the source.
>>>>
>>>>And calling me a man (or implying it by using "he") is a lie to me,
>>>
>>> You have joined PTD in using the word "lie" incorrectly.
>>>
>>> A lie is a statement that is made with full knowledge that it is
>>> untrue. Using "he" to refer to you is not a lie. Referring to you as
>>> a man is not a lie.
>>
>>No. You're taking my statement out of context.
>
> All context was retained.

But that's not what "take out of context" means! Ignoring that my "lie"
was an exact echo to CDB, that I didn't even bring up the concept of
"lying", is taking it out of context. It doesn't matter whether the
context that you ignored in your statement was still visible to me. It
just makes it more obvious.

>> I have joined CDB in the
>>above, echoing his usage. Me calling him Putin-sympathizer is certainly
>>no lie by your "proper" definition, because I don't know either way. I
>>can only trust his claim, or make guesses from other things he said, but
>>I don't know him well enough to be certain.
>
> Of course it's a lie. Claiming that you don't know someone well
> enough to not label them a Nazi, a serial killer, a pedophile, or a
> rapist is preposterous.
>
> But, OK, I'll play your game. You are a manly-man who is employed as
> as a male model and spokesman for Carhartt rugged outdoor wear and a
> former hockey player, known as an "enforcer", for the Quebec
> Nordiques.
>
> All the stuff you've posted in the past about your gender issues is a
> deliberate spoof campaign started as a bet at a TERF club meeting to
> see if you could convince the readers of this newsgroup of the
> authenticity of your claims.
>
> I can make this claim because I don't know you well enough to be
> certain it is not true, I can't trust your claims because I can't
> personally verify them, and I am thus able to make wild guesses.
>
> Is this how you want to play the game?

I'll address that in my answer to CDB.

>>> They both might be misrepresentations of how you see yourself, but
>>> they are not lies.
>>>
>>>>I was tempted to also point out that the usage of "he" leads to some
>>>>confusing statements, like "Quinn? He's just gone to the ladies' room",
>>>>"he's looking for a new bra, over there" or "he's out with his lesbian
>>>>group", but I actually kind of enjoy these, because they underline that
>>>>gender is fake.
>>>
>>> What is confusing about any of those statements?
>>
>>Really? I recently misinterpreted a headline as saying "Putin helping
>>Ukraine with weapons". Was it understandable? Perfectly. Was it
>>confusing? Absolutely, to me. But maybe your mind works differently.
>
> That's the best you can come up? What has it to do with my question?

How is "confused" not the right word for when you hear a statement that
contradicts what you know? More formally, cognitive dissonance. Holding
two ideas that contradict each other at the same time: "Putin leads a
war against Ukraine. Putin gives weapons to Ukraine." or "Quinn is a
man. Quinn wears bras."

>>> If any of those
>>> statements are made by someone when not in your presence, they would
>>> seem to be perfectly understandable to anyone who knows you.
>>
>>If they know me, maybe so - because they'd recognize that I'm more woman
>>than man.
>>
>>> Surely you do not expect your co-workers to use your preferred
>>> pronouns when referring to you but not in your presence.
>>
>>Of course I expect that. I don't think of them as a bunch of assholes.
>>Your experience with cow-orkers may vary.
>
> So working with you is a 24/7 responsibility. Not only are your
> coworkers expected to adhere to your rule book in your presence, but
> must follow those rules

It's not my rule, dammit, it's the rule of society that pronouns should
match the gender of the person. If you say it wouldn't bother you if
your co-workers would refer to you as "she" all the time when you're not
there, or to your wife as "he" (maybe even in front of you, just not
her), I don't believe you.

If I have to explain the most basic principles over and over, we're
never getting anywhere.

--
Quinn C
My pronouns are they/them
(or other gender-neutral ones)

On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 1:02:39 PM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
> * Peter T. Daniels:
> > On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 10:27:06 AM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
> >> * Peter T. Daniels:
> >>> On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 6:06:04 PM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:

> >>>> And calling me a man (or implying it by using "he") is a lie to me,
> >>>> because I'm not a man in what I consider the normal everyday sense (as
> >>>> opposed to medical or legal senses), which involves looking and acting
> >>>> like a man.
> >>> (Does it?)
> >> To me, that's not only what I consider the most reasonable, but also
> >> what I observe in others, who never once objected to me going to the
> >> ladies' and now mostly spontaneously classify me as woman.
> > That's a statement about you rather than about the language.
>
> Language is supposed to reflect reality, no?

What an odd suggestion!

> "Woman" and "she" describe
> me better to an observer than "man" and "he". I pose that "non-binary"
> and "they" is even more accurate.
>
> That's why new pronouns are needed when a new gender is introduced. New
> words for new things.
>
> It's really rather simple, and that's why all the language complaints in
> the end burn down to people not accepting identity.
>
> > Though if a trans-woman still has male plumbing, you'd think she'd
> > find it a lot more convenient to go to a men's room with urinals than
> > to a ladies' with only sit-down toilets. (Unless, of course, trans-women
> > are so utterly caught up in the gender norms of the 20th century that
> > they prefer skirts and pantyhose and girdles ("Spanx") and all that
>
> No, they're caught up in the prevailing norm that peeing standing up is
> a masculine behavior. Just like the millions of men who refuse to sit
> down when there's no urinal, and trans men who buy packers with a
> urinating function.
>
> I haven't peed standing at my own or anyone's house since I'm 13 or so,
> long before I seriously switched gender identity. It was enough that I
> didn't feel I have to prove my masculinity by doing it standing. The
> same is true of many other behaviors of mine.

Convenience is "proving masculinity??

> > to
> > the pants (BrE "trousers"?) that have pretty much taken over women's
> > attire in business, cf. Hillary Clinton.)
>
> Who accordingly looks like a legacy of second-wave feminism. Which is
> fine at her age, but younger women have other ideas. No need to imitate
> men's attire to be taken seriously.

Sorry, I don't know what these "waves" are that you keep going on about,.

What do "younger women" wear these days?

> >>>> I was tempted to also point out that the usage of "he" leads to some
> >>>> confusing statements, like "Quinn? He's just gone to the ladies' room",
> >>>> "he's looking for a new bra, over there" or "he's out with his lesbian
> >>>> group", but I actually kind of enjoy these, because they underline that
> >>>> gender is fake.
> >>> Each of those statements seems utterly unexceptionable.
> >> No incongruence with your world knowledge? "The cat is barking" is
> >> completely normal, too?
> > We know that the word for a cat noise is "meow" and that "bark"
> > is the word for a seal noise.
>
> And "the cat is making seal noises" doesn't strike you as odd?

A talented cat.
> Is not "what the speaker called a cat is actually a seal" one theory of
> how to resolve the confusion caused by the statement?

Unlikely. It's hard to mistake a cat for a seal visually.

> > Whether those sentences refer (or allude) to Q or anyone else,
> > their meaning is perfectly clear.
>
> Hello? World knowledge, once more?
>
> I thought I was using "confusing" in the basic sense, which has to do
> with ideas that don't fit together, not clarity of language.

On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 1:02:40 PM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:

> It should irk you to be called a Putin sympathizer when you're not one.
> Likewise, it irks me to be called a man when I'm not one, by my
> understanding of the word.

You don't get to tell words what they mean. (Unless you pay them
extra, of course.)

* Peter T. Daniels:

> On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 1:02:40 PM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
>
>> It should irk you to be called a Putin sympathizer when you're not one.
>> Likewise, it irks me to be called a man when I'm not one, by my
>> understanding of the word.
>
> You don't get to tell words what they mean. (Unless you pay them
> extra, of course.)

As I've remarked before, I use definitions similar to those common in
gender studies, psychology, sociology, trans medicine - and of course,
among trans and genderqueer people.

I hope you don't reject all statements from physicists and engineers who
use "force" or "energy" with the definitions usual in physics instead of
those you're familiar with in everyday life. The physics definitions of
force and energy are more precise and more useful than everyday terms
when talking about physical processes.

Similarly, the gender studies definitions of man and woman are more
precise and more useful when talking about gender.

Plus, one more time, the definitions that I observe people using in real
life are not the same that people here claim are normal to them. I
believe some of this only happens because posters imagine things in
abstract from the solitary confines of their room, instead of watching
themselves or others in real human interaction.

--
Quinn C
My pronouns are they/them
(or other gender-neutral ones)

* Peter T. Daniels:

> On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 1:02:39 PM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
>> * Peter T. Daniels:
>>> On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 10:27:06 AM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
>>>> * Peter T. Daniels:
>>>>> On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 6:06:04 PM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
>
>>>>>> And calling me a man (or implying it by using "he") is a lie to me,
>>>>>> because I'm not a man in what I consider the normal everyday sense (as
>>>>>> opposed to medical or legal senses), which involves looking and acting
>>>>>> like a man.
>>>>> (Does it?)
>>>> To me, that's not only what I consider the most reasonable, but also
>>>> what I observe in others, who never once objected to me going to the
>>>> ladies' and now mostly spontaneously classify me as woman.
>>> That's a statement about you rather than about the language.
>>
>> Language is supposed to reflect reality, no?
>
> What an odd suggestion!
>
>> "Woman" and "she" describe
>> me better to an observer than "man" and "he". I pose that "non-binary"
>> and "they" is even more accurate.
>>
>> That's why new pronouns are needed when a new gender is introduced. New
>> words for new things.
>>
>> It's really rather simple, and that's why all the language complaints in
>> the end burn down to people not accepting identity.
>>
>>> Though if a trans-woman still has male plumbing, you'd think she'd
>>> find it a lot more convenient to go to a men's room with urinals than
>>> to a ladies' with only sit-down toilets. (Unless, of course, trans-women
>>> are so utterly caught up in the gender norms of the 20th century that
>>> they prefer skirts and pantyhose and girdles ("Spanx") and all that
>>
>> No, they're caught up in the prevailing norm that peeing standing up is
>> a masculine behavior. Just like the millions of men who refuse to sit
>> down when there's no urinal, and trans men who buy packers with a
>> urinating function.
>>
>> I haven't peed standing at my own or anyone's house since I'm 13 or so,
>> long before I seriously switched gender identity. It was enough that I
>> didn't feel I have to prove my masculinity by doing it standing. The
>> same is true of many other behaviors of mine.
>
> Convenience is "proving masculinity??

I think I saw a quote from Athel at some point where he claimed that
everyone has the same expertise on gender, just by living in a gender
for decades. If anyone needed proof that this is utter nonsense, here it
is.

If you don't even know that peeing standing up is an act of proving
masculinity, then you don't know the first thing on gender. You haven't
reached the level of awareness of many a 6-year-old. You missed not only
Gender 101, but also Feminism 101 (which your other remark below
confirms, too.)

>>> to
>>> the pants (BrE "trousers"?) that have pretty much taken over women's
>>> attire in business, cf. Hillary Clinton.)
>>
>> Who accordingly looks like a legacy of second-wave feminism. Which is
>> fine at her age, but younger women have other ideas. No need to imitate
>> men's attire to be taken seriously.
>
> Sorry, I don't know what these "waves" are that you keep going on about,.

Feminism 101.
> What do "younger women" wear these days?

Whatever they like. Dresses are fine for working, too. They're
wonderfully airy in summer. Besides, women's pants don't necessarily
have a zipper, or not in the right place. Leggings, obviously not.

Additionally, trans women have more pressure from society to prove their
femininity, so they will wear skirts and dresses more often than cis
women. In the 1990s, it was still assumed that once you transition, you
won't ever leave the house without makeup and heels or in pants
henceforth. One reason I didn't see myself in this model of trans woman.

It wasn't easy to find a photo of Dr. Rachel Levine with legs visible,
but in the few that showed up, she was wearing skirts.

<https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D3QTPcZXoAAnsDn.jpg>

--
Quinn C
My pronouns are they/them
(or other gender-neutral ones)

On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 13:02:31 -0400, Quinn C
<lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:

>* Tony Cooper:
>
>> On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 09:09:26 -0400, Quinn C
>> <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>>
>>>* Tony Cooper:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2022 18:05:55 -0400, Quinn C
>>>> <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>* CDB:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/20/2022 8:59 PM, Quinn C wrote:
>>>>>>> * CDB:
>>>>>>>> Quinn C wrote:
>>>>>>>>> * CDB, the American:
>>>>>>>>>> Quinn C wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And if you still think it's about "a word", I guess you're a
>>>>>>>>>>> lost cause.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for making it clear that your "request" is in fact a
>>>>>>>>>> threat.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I have no idea where you get that from.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A threat of not talking to you any more? Well, thanks for valuing
>>>>>>>>> me that much.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I didn't say it was an effective threat.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It still sees like a wrong usage to me. More obviously so than when
>>>>>>> my ex said I shouldn't threaten her with divorce, and I said that's
>>>>>>> not a "threat", because I wouldn't do it in order to hurt her, but to
>>>>>>> get myself out of harm's way.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What did you mean by "CDB, the American" up above? Shall I act
>>>>>>>> outraged? I have been taken for an American many times, sometimes
>>>>>>>> by people from other parts of the world, sometimes by Americans. I
>>>>>>>> have never been bovvered.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's supposed to be a closer match to the false attribution of an
>>>>>>> identity that's the subject of debate, with a term that's not
>>>>>>> objectionable on its own.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I do expect that it'd get annoying if it was repeated by various
>>>>>>> people with the regularity of pronouns, and even more so when people
>>>>>>> pick up on it and blame you for the havoc Americans wreak in the
>>>>>>> world, assume that you probably carry a gun around and such. But
>>>>>>> still, Canadian and American may not be different enough as
>>>>>>> identities to compare to genders. I could try "Putin-sympathizer" or
>>>>>>> something.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since you know, or ought to know, that that is untrue, calling me a
>>>>>> putinista would be a lie. I would probably post in to contradict it,
>>>>>> since it would be a lie that could damage my reputation, but I would not
>>>>>> be all of a doodah. I think I would consider the source.
>>>>>
>>>>>And calling me a man (or implying it by using "he") is a lie to me,
>>>>
>>>> You have joined PTD in using the word "lie" incorrectly.
>>>>
>>>> A lie is a statement that is made with full knowledge that it is
>>>> untrue. Using "he" to refer to you is not a lie. Referring to you as
>>>> a man is not a lie.
>>>
>>>No. You're taking my statement out of context.
>>
>> All context was retained.
>
>But that's not what "take out of context" means!

> Ignoring that my "lie"
>was an exact echo to CDB, that I didn't even bring up the concept of
>"lying", is taking it out of context.

I'm fully aware of how "take out of context" is used. It is used to
mean "You took what I said to mean that what I said was what I said,
but you shouldn't take it mean what I said."

You said "is a lie" and that does most certainly bring up the concept
of "lying". Claiming it's an echo of what someone else has said does
not make it acceptable.

> It doesn't matter whether the
>context that you ignored in your statement was still visible to me. It
>just makes it more obvious.
>
>>> I have joined CDB in the
>>>above, echoing his usage. Me calling him Putin-sympathizer is certainly
>>>no lie by your "proper" definition, because I don't know either way. I
>>>can only trust his claim, or make guesses from other things he said, but
>>>I don't know him well enough to be certain.
>>
>> Of course it's a lie. Claiming that you don't know someone well
>> enough to not label them a Nazi, a serial killer, a pedophile, or a
>> rapist is preposterous.
>>
>> But, OK, I'll play your game. You are a manly-man who is employed as
>> as a male model and spokesman for Carhartt rugged outdoor wear and a
>> former hockey player, known as an "enforcer", for the Quebec
>> Nordiques.
>>
>> All the stuff you've posted in the past about your gender issues is a
>> deliberate spoof campaign started as a bet at a TERF club meeting to
>> see if you could convince the readers of this newsgroup of the
>> authenticity of your claims.
>>
>> I can make this claim because I don't know you well enough to be
>> certain it is not true, I can't trust your claims because I can't
>> personally verify them, and I am thus able to make wild guesses.
>>
>> Is this how you want to play the game?
>
>I'll address that in my answer to CDB.
>
>>>> They both might be misrepresentations of how you see yourself, but
>>>> they are not lies.
>>>>
>>>>>I was tempted to also point out that the usage of "he" leads to some
>>>>>confusing statements, like "Quinn? He's just gone to the ladies' room",
>>>>>"he's looking for a new bra, over there" or "he's out with his lesbian
>>>>>group", but I actually kind of enjoy these, because they underline that
>>>>>gender is fake.
>>>>
>>>> What is confusing about any of those statements?
>>>
>>>Really? I recently misinterpreted a headline as saying "Putin helping
>>>Ukraine with weapons". Was it understandable? Perfectly. Was it
>>>confusing? Absolutely, to me. But maybe your mind works differently.
>>
>> That's the best you can come up? What has it to do with my question?
>
>How is "confused" not the right word for when you hear a statement that
>contradicts what you know?

I frequently see/hear statements that contradict what I know, or -
rather - what I think I know. They might lead me to re-evaluate what
I think I know, but they don't confuse me.

>More formally, cognitive dissonance. Holding
>two ideas that contradict each other at the same time: "Putin leads a
>war against Ukraine. Putin gives weapons to Ukraine."

That was a poor example from the get-go. Those may be conflicting
statements, but no one would both ideas.

>or "Quinn is a man. Quinn wears bras."

Those are not even conflicting statements. Just because they are not
what one usually expects to see/hear doesn't mean that it would be
confusing. They merely identify Quinn as one of those men who wears a
bra, and it's well-known that some do. The shock value of that went
to zero a long time ago.

>
>>>> If any of those
>>>> statements are made by someone when not in your presence, they would
>>>> seem to be perfectly understandable to anyone who knows you.
>>>
>>>If they know me, maybe so - because they'd recognize that I'm more woman
>>>than man.
>>>
>>>> Surely you do not expect your co-workers to use your preferred
>>>> pronouns when referring to you but not in your presence.
>>>
>>>Of course I expect that. I don't think of them as a bunch of assholes.
>>>Your experience with cow-orkers may vary.
>>
>> So working with you is a 24/7 responsibility. Not only are your
>> coworkers expected to adhere to your rule book in your presence, but
>> must follow those rules
>
>It's not my rule, dammit, it's the rule of society

On 4/22/2022 12:32 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> CDB wrote:
>> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> CDB wrote:

>>>>> And calling me a man (or implying it by using "he") is a lie to
>>>>> me, because I'm not a man in what I consider the normal everyday
>>>>> sense (as opposed to medical or legal senses), which involves
>>>>> looking and acting like a man.
>>>> What a piece of work you are!
>>> Kindly continue the quotation.

>> I was saving that for the next round.

>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_a_piece_of_work_is_a_man#Stage_productions
>>> Interesting stuff higher up about variants.

>> I tend to hear it in the Ragni/Rado version from _Hair_. I have to
>> remember to put the article back in if I'm quoting Shakespeare.

> Meaning you didn't look at the discussion of variants at the top
> of the article.

Sure I did. The canonical (First Folio) version still has the article,
and I still hear the musical version.

>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fstxNFdQWZQ

On 4/22/2022 1:02 PM, Quinn C wrote:
> * CDB:
>> Quinn C wrote:
>>> CDB:
>>>> Quinn C wrote:
>>>>> * CDB:
>>>>>> Quinn C wrote:
>>>>>>> CDB, the American:
>>>>>>>> Quinn C wrote:

>>>>>>>>> And if you still think it's about "a word", I guess
>>>>>>>>> you're a lost cause.

>>>>>>>> Thank you for making it clear that your "request" is
>>>>>>>> in fact a threat.

>>>>>>> I have no idea where you get that from.

>>>>>>> A threat of not talking to you any more? Well, thanks
>>>>>>> for valuing me that much.

>>>>>> I didn't say it was an effective threat.

>>>>> It still sees like a wrong usage to me. More obviously so
>>>>> than when my ex said I shouldn't threaten her with divorce,
>>>>> and I said that's not a "threat", because I wouldn't do it in
>>>>> order to hurt her, but to get myself out of harm's way.

I don't see how your motive for threatening your ex bears on the
question. A threat is a threat in any case.

>>>>>> What did you mean by "CDB, the American" up above? Shall
>>>>>> I act outraged? I have been taken for an American many
>>>>>> times, sometimes by people from other parts of the world,
>>>>>> sometimes by Americans. I have never been bovvered.

>>>>> It's supposed to be a closer match to the false attribution
>>>>> of an identity that's the subject of debate, with a term
>>>>> that's not objectionable on its own.

>>>>> I do expect that it'd get annoying if it was repeated by
>>>>> various people with the regularity of pronouns, and even more
>>>>> so when people pick up on it and blame you for the havoc
>>>>> Americans wreak in the world, assume that you probably carry
>>>>> a gun around and such. But still, Canadian and American may
>>>>> not be different enough as identities to compare to genders.
>>>>> I could try "Putin-sympathizer" or something.

>>>> Since you know, or ought to know, that that is untrue, calling
>>>> me a putinista would be a lie. I would probably post in to
>>>> contradict it, since it would be a lie that could damage my
>>>> reputation, but I would not be all of a doodah. I think I
>>>> would consider the source.

>>> And calling me a man (or implying it by using "he") is a lie to
>>> me, because I'm not a man in what I consider the normal everyday
>>> sense (as opposed to medical or legal senses), which involves
>>> looking and acting like a man.

>> What a piece of work you are!

>>> I was tempted to also point out that the usage of "he" leads to
>>> some confusing statements, like "Quinn? He's just gone to the
>>> ladies' room", "he's looking for a new bra, over there" or "he's
>>> out with his lesbian group", but I actually kind of enjoy these,
>>> because they underline that gender is fake.

>> Have I disappointed you, then, with my consistent use of your
>> preferred pronouns? My objection is still what it has always been:
>> I decline to be forced into something that I am demonstrably
>> willing to do out of courtesy or sympathy, or for some other
>> relatively inoffensive motive.

>>>> You seem to be relevance-challenged in picking your
>>>> comparisons.

>>> I won't be able to pick one you'll accept if you're not ready
>>> to.

>> Have to get my mind right? Sure, Captain.

>>>> You may not like some of the things I say, but IMO none of them
>>>> are untrue. I don't think you can credibly claim they are, and
>>>> I'm certain you can't say - credibly - that I know they are.

>>> Why should I believe what you claim about yourself? That's the
>>> main point I'm making here.

>> Well, why didn't you say that was your main point?

> With this specific comparison. Other comparisons made other points.

>> In fact I am remarkably frank with this group; now that I'm old I
>> no longer see much point in lying, and doing that here would be a
>> little like cheating at solitaire.

>> That being said, I have no mandate, and no wish, to make you
>> believe what I say. My "main point" is that you have no such
>> mandate either.

> Sure. I can't make you believe what my legal sex registration is nor
> what my gender is. You chose to believe one but not the other. In
> any case, not believing me shows you don't think highly of me.

In some respects, that is true. In some respects, I feel sorry for you.

> It should irk you to be called a Putin sympathizer when you're not
> one. Likewise, it irks me to be called a man when I'm not one, by my
> understanding of the word.

I know who and what I am. The opinions of other people can't change
that. Try it yourself, some time.

> I know you're using the word with a different definition, but that
> means you side with a worldview that is tied to my oppression, that
> makes bathroom laws and such possible. There's the parallel to the
> N-word you wouldn't see.

Poor oppressed creature, with your own place and plenty to eat and money
to buy brassieres with! Can you imagine their suffering? Some people
don't jump when they says "jump".

>>> Interestingly, if you classify me as a man, that is also solely
>>> based on my declarations, so I wonder how you pick which of my
>>> statements to accept and which to reject.

You posted here for quite a long time as "Oliver". Then you changed
your mind, possibly considering that your privilege.

>> AFAICR, I have accepted your statements of fact; it's your
>> statements of claim that I don't accept

> This is where "disrespect" comes into play: you accepted what I
> reported others saying about me (by assigning me a gender based on my
> sex), but not my own opinion on my gender.

Your opinion of your gender is fine with me; fill your boots. I prefer
to classify people according to sex (please take note of the next part)
_either biological or demonstrated_. That is the custom of most of
humanity.

If you want to present yourself as a woman, I'll accommodate that under
the "demonstrated" clause. I have already changed my use of personal
pronouns, partly in response to your nagging and partly under the "feel
sorry" clause, to use the "undetermined" forms for you, but I am not
your stooge.
,
> If I had told you that my schoolmates called me a teacher's pet and
> a grind*, but I wasn't, I just loved learning, and you chose to side
> with the others' judgment, that's a similar feeling.

That would be what made you a pet. I see no cognitive dissonance here.

I was lucky, or unlucky, enough to be able to pick up what interested me
wthout much effort. I would have turned out to be more industrious if
my memory had been poorer.

>> - your attempts to contol the people around you. Me, for
>> instance.

> Asking for equal consideration without sex discrimination is not
> "controlling" people. You seem to have fallen deeply into an
> ideological trap.
____
> * "Grind" is marked archaic, but I can't seem to find a modern word
> for someone who's unpopular because they work hard and get better
> results, making their classmates look bad in comparison.

Does the rising generation still do that? Another word, also oldish, is
"swot". Perhaps "keener" in some places, though not in all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ru2DW3s7W-c

This repetitive threnody is growing over-long. I may decide soon to
stop responding.

On 4/22/2022 6:02 PM, Quinn C wrote:
> Peter T. Daniels:
>> Quinn C wrote:

>>> It should irk you to be called a Putin sympathizer when you're
>>> not one. Likewise, it irks me to be called a man when I'm not
>>> one, by my understanding of the word.

>> You don't get to tell words what they mean. (Unless you pay them
>> extra, of course.)

> As I've remarked before, I use definitions similar to those common
> in gender studies, psychology, sociology, trans medicine - and of
> course, among trans and genderqueer people.

> I hope you don't reject all statements from physicists and engineers
> who use "force" or "energy" with the definitions usual in physics
> instead of those you're familiar with in everyday life. The physics
> definitions of force and energy are more precise and more useful than
> everyday terms when talking about physical processes.

> Similarly, the gender studies definitions of man and woman are more
> precise and more useful when talking about gender.

> Plus, one more time, the definitions that I observe people using in
> real life are not the same that people here claim are normal to them.
> I believe some of this only happens because posters imagine things
> in abstract from the solitary confines of their room, instead of
> watching themselves or others in real human interaction.

A useful analogy, because physicists don't lobby constantly to have
their terms of art adopted everywhere. The terms of physics among
physicists; the terms of transpersons and genderqueers amongst
themselves. The rest of the population can relax, or ought to be able to.

On 4/22/2022 6:02 PM, Quinn C wrote:
> * Peter T. Daniels:
>> Quinn C wrote:
>>> * Peter T. Daniels:
>>>> Quinn C wrote:
>>>>> Peter T. Daniels:
>>>>>> Quinn C wrote:

>>>>>>> And calling me a man (or implying it by using "he") is a
>>>>>>> lie to me, because I'm not a man in what I consider the
>>>>>>> normal everyday sense (as opposed to medical or legal
>>>>>>> senses), which involves looking and acting like a man.
>>>>>> (Does it?)
>>>>> To me, that's not only what I consider the most reasonable,
>>>>> but also what I observe in others, who never once objected to
>>>>> me going to the ladies' and now mostly spontaneously classify
>>>>> me as woman.
>>>> That's a statement about you rather than about the language.

>>> Language is supposed to reflect reality, no?

>> What an odd suggestion!

>>> "Woman" and "she" describe me better to an observer than "man"
>>> and "he". I pose that "non-binary" and "they" is even more
>>> accurate.

>>> That's why new pronouns are needed when a new gender is
>>> introduced. New words for new things.

>>> It's really rather simple, and that's why all the language
>>> complaints in the end burn down to people not accepting
>>> identity.

>>>> Though if a trans-woman still has male plumbing, you'd think
>>>> she'd find it a lot more convenient to go to a men's room with
>>>> urinals than to a ladies' with only sit-down toilets. (Unless,
>>>> of course, trans-women are so utterly caught up in the gender
>>>> norms of the 20th century that they prefer skirts and pantyhose
>>>> and girdles ("Spanx") and all that

>>> No, they're caught up in the prevailing norm that peeing standing
>>> up is a masculine behavior. Just like the millions of men who
>>> refuse to sit down when there's no urinal, and trans men who buy
>>> packers with a urinating function.

>>> I haven't peed standing at my own or anyone's house since I'm 13
>>> or so, long before I seriously switched gender identity. It was
>>> enough that I didn't feel I have to prove my masculinity by doing
>>> it standing. The same is true of many other behaviors of mine.

>> Convenience is "proving masculinity??

> I think I saw a quote from Athel at some point where he claimed that
> everyone has the same expertise on gender, just by living in a
> gender for decades. If anyone needed proof that this is utter
> nonsense, here it is.

> If you don't even know that peeing standing up is an act of proving
> masculinity, then you don't know the first thing on gender. You
> haven't reached the level of awareness of many a 6-year-old. You
> missed not only Gender 101, but also Feminism 101 (which your other
> remark below confirms, too.)

I did wish not to be mistaken for a girl when I was six. Now I pee
standing up or sitting down, as convenience dictates. It's part of
being a grownup.

>>>> to the pants (BrE "trousers"?) that have pretty much taken over
>>>> women's attire in business, cf. Hillary Clinton.)

[Quinn enjoying themself]
>

In article <a5offvxplfgl$.dlg@mid.crommatograph.info>,
lispamateur@crommatograph.info says...
>
> Plus, one more time, the definitions that I observe people using in real
> life are not the same that people here claim are normal to them.
I
> believe some of this only happens because posters imagine things in
> abstract from the solitary confines of their room, instead of watching
> themselves or others in real human interaction.

I believe that because in real life you focus on association with
people who confirm your own self-belief, it's become your normal. From
a moated fortress protecting those within, you can't see past your own
horizon.

> believe some of this only happens because posters imagine things in
> abstract from the solitary confines of their room, instead of watching
> themselves or others in real human interaction.

The basic flaw in that belief, is that it disrespects and
belittles any POV that doesn't serve your inner Quinnworld.

Janet