On Sat, 9 Apr 2022 22:28:48 +0100
Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:

> On 09-Apr-22 3:51, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> > On 09/04/2022 3:32 am, JAB wrote:
>
> >> Corporations are "persons," so what gender are they?
> >>
> >
> > I don't know, but their preferred unpronounceable pronouns are
> > presumably ltd and plc.
> >
> Much inc has been spilt over this topic.
>
And GuMmyBeaHs scoffed.

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

Kerr-Mudd, John submitted this gripping article, maybe on Sunday:
> On Sat, 9 Apr 2022 22:28:48 +0100
> Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:
>
>> On 09-Apr-22 3:51, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>> On 09/04/2022 3:32 am, JAB wrote:
>>
>>>> Corporations are "persons," so what gender are they?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't know, but their preferred unpronounceable pronouns are
>>> presumably ltd and plc.
>>>
>> Much inc has been spilt over this topic.
>>
> And GuMmyBeaHs scoffed.

those non-rhotic bears and scarfs, eh?

/dps

--
Maybe C282Y is simply one of the hangers-on, a groupie following a
future guitar god of the human genome: an allele with undiscovered
virtuosity, currently soloing in obscurity in Mom's garage.
Bradley Wertheim, theAtlantic.com, Jan 10 2013

On Sat, 9 Apr 2022 22:28:48 +0100, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:

>> presumably ltd and plc.
>>
>Much inc has been spilt over this topic.

Spilt or spit, or both?

On 2022-04-09 16:44, lar3ryca wrote:
> On 2022-04-09 15:28, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>> On 09-Apr-22 3:51, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>> On 09/04/2022 3:32 am, JAB wrote:
>>
>>>> Corporations are "persons," so what gender are they?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't know, but their preferred unpronounceable pronouns are
>>> presumably ltd and plc.
>>>
>> Much inc has been spilt over this topic.
>
> 50 50 100

Hmm... too obscure?

Perhaps only applicable to Roman companies.

On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 10:32:59 PM UTC-4, JAB wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Apr 2022 23:37:09 -0000 (UTC), Lewis
> <g.k...@kreme.dont-email.me> wrote:
>
> >definition of gender
>
> Corporations are "persons," so what gender are they?

After death, what are they?

On 11-Apr-22 5:27, lar3ryca wrote:
> On 2022-04-09 16:44, lar3ryca wrote:
>> On 2022-04-09 15:28, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>>> On 09-Apr-22 3:51, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>> On 09/04/2022 3:32 am, JAB wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Corporations are "persons," so what gender are they?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't know, but their preferred unpronounceable pronouns are
>>>> presumably ltd and plc.
>>>>
>>> Much inc has been spilt over this topic.
>>
>> 50 50 100
>
> Hmm... too obscure?
>
> Perhaps only applicable to Roman companies.

I C.

--
Sam Plusnet

On 4/6/2022 18:28, Quinn C wrote:
> * Kerr-Mudd, John:
>
>> N B xpost added
>>
>> On Tue, 05 Apr 2022 10:42:47 -0400
>> Michael Trew<michael.trew@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>> "Deadnaming" is when a transgender person is called by a name of the
>>> gender they utilized before transitioning, or a name associated with
>>> their biological gender."
>
> "Biological gender" is an abomination.

Um... OK?

>>> Deadnaming... good grief, I guess I learned a new term today. Sorry,
>>> but that fellow was born a man, regardless of what he/she/it internally
>>> thinks. I don't care for the Carlson fellow, but I have to agree, I
>>> wouldn't delete my message either.
>>>
>>> While I'm at it, the use of the word "they" as a pronoun for one single
>>> person who disagrees with the gender they were born with *really*
>>> bothers me. It's quite grammatically incorrect, as "they" is a plural.
>>> Male or Female; it's a simple concept.
>>>
>>> Why is this just now an issue, and wasn't an issue for centuries prior?
>>> People are just bizarre. Don't bring up the very small percentage of
>>> people born with both biological parts, as that's a whole other case
>>> beyond their control; and that isn't something new.
>>
>> New word here?
>> I'd imagine Quinn might like to chip in on this.
>
> Easy. It's impolite to use a name that a person doesn't wish to be
> addressed by, and even more impolite to use a wrong gender, that's it.
> Insisting you know the gender, or profession, or religion of another
> person better than the person themself makes you an ass.

If someone corrects me on their name, I will adapt. I'm regularly
called "Mike", and I don't prefer that name. I'll correct you once or
twice, but some people are insistent, so I let it go. It's not the end
of the world. Call me old-fashioned if you will, but I associate with
people who you can clearly tell male vs. female.

I don't outright pick fights with anyone else over their "identity", but
if one of the stereotypical "transgender" "men" were to insist on being
called a female, I wouldn't degrade them, but I'd simply avoid that
person, because that just makes me uncomfortable. I live in a rather
traditional area, and meeting someone like that is pretty rare.

* Michael Trew:

> On 4/6/2022 18:28, Quinn C wrote:
>> * Kerr-Mudd, John:
>>
>>> N B xpost added
>>>
>>> On Tue, 05 Apr 2022 10:42:47 -0400
>>> Michael Trew<michael.trew@att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Deadnaming" is when a transgender person is called by a name of the
>>>> gender they utilized before transitioning, or a name associated with
>>>> their biological gender."
>>
>> "Biological gender" is an abomination.
>
> Um... OK?

As somebody has pointed out, "gender" is sometimes used as a euphemism
for "sex". That's normally clear from context, and sometimes it doesn't
matter.

But the word "gender" is more useful when you want to distinguish the
biological stuff (sex) from the social stuff that society piles on top
of it (gender roles, gender identity). So, biological sex vs. social
gender.

Saying "biological gender" (or "social sex") just muddies the water.

>>>> Deadnaming... good grief, I guess I learned a new term today. Sorry,
>>>> but that fellow was born a man, regardless of what he/she/it internally
>>>> thinks. I don't care for the Carlson fellow, but I have to agree, I
>>>> wouldn't delete my message either.
>>>>
>>>> While I'm at it, the use of the word "they" as a pronoun for one single
>>>> person who disagrees with the gender they were born with *really*
>>>> bothers me. It's quite grammatically incorrect, as "they" is a plural.
>>>> Male or Female; it's a simple concept.
>>>>
>>>> Why is this just now an issue, and wasn't an issue for centuries prior?
>>>> People are just bizarre. Don't bring up the very small percentage of
>>>> people born with both biological parts, as that's a whole other case
>>>> beyond their control; and that isn't something new.
>>>
>>> New word here?
>>> I'd imagine Quinn might like to chip in on this.
>>
>> Easy. It's impolite to use a name that a person doesn't wish to be
>> addressed by, and even more impolite to use a wrong gender, that's it.
>> Insisting you know the gender, or profession, or religion of another
>> person better than the person themself makes you an ass.
>
> If someone corrects me on their name, I will adapt. I'm regularly
> called "Mike", and I don't prefer that name. I'll correct you once or
> twice, but some people are insistent, so I let it go. It's not the end
> of the world.

Switching from "Michael" to "Mike" won't greatly change what kind of
person people think you are, specifically, what gender you are. You
might not enjoy being called "Michelle" as much.

> Call me old-fashioned if you will, but I associate with
> people who you can clearly tell male vs. female.
>
> I don't outright pick fights with anyone else over their "identity", but
> if one of the stereotypical "transgender" "men" were to insist on being
> called a female,

I'm not female and don't want to be "called a female", but I'm a rather
feminine person, so being called a "man" or "he" makes me uncomfortable,
and as if I won't just naturally blend in with all my women friends.

> I wouldn't degrade them, but I'd simply avoid that
> person, because that just makes me uncomfortable. I live in a rather
> traditional area, and meeting someone like that is pretty rare.

Well, maybe I can't complain, because "manly men" make me uncomfortable,
and we may all need to be allowed such preferences.

But not all trans people are what you think of as "stereotypical" - I
can't imagine you'd be uncomfortable with her:

<https://youtu.be/2FjLssg8pN0>

It's actually fascinating that she has an identical twin brother.

<https://youtu.be/i16F31RQKlM?t=468>

--
"I didn't mind getting old when I was young, either," I said.
"It's the being old now that's getting to me."
-- J. Scalzi, Old Man's War

On 4/12/2022 12:50, Quinn C wrote:
> * Michael Trew:
>
>> On 4/6/2022 18:28, Quinn C wrote:
>>> * Kerr-Mudd, John:
>>>
>>>> N B xpost added
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, 05 Apr 2022 10:42:47 -0400
>>>> Michael Trew<michael.trew@att.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Deadnaming" is when a transgender person is called by a name of the
>>>>> gender they utilized before transitioning, or a name associated with
>>>>> their biological gender."
>>>
>>> "Biological gender" is an abomination.
>>
>> Um... OK?
>
> As somebody has pointed out, "gender" is sometimes used as a euphemism
> for "sex". That's normally clear from context, and sometimes it doesn't
> matter.
>
> But the word "gender" is more useful when you want to distinguish the
> biological stuff (sex) from the social stuff that society piles on top
> of it (gender roles, gender identity). So, biological sex vs. social
> gender.
>
> Saying "biological gender" (or "social sex") just muddies the water.
>
>>>>> Deadnaming... good grief, I guess I learned a new term today. Sorry,
>>>>> but that fellow was born a man, regardless of what he/she/it internally
>>>>> thinks. I don't care for the Carlson fellow, but I have to agree, I
>>>>> wouldn't delete my message either.
>>>>>
>>>>> While I'm at it, the use of the word "they" as a pronoun for one single
>>>>> person who disagrees with the gender they were born with *really*
>>>>> bothers me. It's quite grammatically incorrect, as "they" is a plural.
>>>>> Male or Female; it's a simple concept.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why is this just now an issue, and wasn't an issue for centuries prior?
>>>>> People are just bizarre. Don't bring up the very small percentage of
>>>>> people born with both biological parts, as that's a whole other case
>>>>> beyond their control; and that isn't something new.
>>>>
>>>> New word here?
>>>> I'd imagine Quinn might like to chip in on this.
>>>
>>> Easy. It's impolite to use a name that a person doesn't wish to be
>>> addressed by, and even more impolite to use a wrong gender, that's it.
>>> Insisting you know the gender, or profession, or religion of another
>>> person better than the person themself makes you an ass.
>>
>> If someone corrects me on their name, I will adapt. I'm regularly
>> called "Mike", and I don't prefer that name. I'll correct you once or
>> twice, but some people are insistent, so I let it go. It's not the end
>> of the world.
>
> Switching from "Michael" to "Mike" won't greatly change what kind of
> person people think you are, specifically, what gender you are. You
> might not enjoy being called "Michelle" as much.
>
>> Call me old-fashioned if you will, but I associate with
>> people who you can clearly tell male vs. female.
>>
>> I don't outright pick fights with anyone else over their "identity", but
>> if one of the stereotypical "transgender" "men" were to insist on being
>> called a female,
>
> I'm not female and don't want to be "called a female", but I'm a rather
> feminine person, so being called a "man" or "he" makes me uncomfortable,
> and as if I won't just naturally blend in with all my women friends.
>
>> I wouldn't degrade them, but I'd simply avoid that
>> person, because that just makes me uncomfortable. I live in a rather
>> traditional area, and meeting someone like that is pretty rare.
>
> Well, maybe I can't complain, because "manly men" make me uncomfortable,
> and we may all need to be allowed such preferences.
>
> But not all trans people are what you think of as "stereotypical" - I
> can't imagine you'd be uncomfortable with her:
>
> <https://youtu.be/2FjLssg8pN0>
>
> It's actually fascinating that she has an identical twin brother.
>
> <https://youtu.be/i16F31RQKlM?t=468>

All fair points. When I think of "trans-gender", I think of the pushy
type trying to make a statement, as typically depicted. Average people,
I wouldn't have a problem with.

* Michael Trew:

> On 4/12/2022 12:50, Quinn C wrote:
>> * Michael Trew:
>>
>>> On 4/6/2022 18:28, Quinn C wrote:
>>>> * Kerr-Mudd, John:
>>>>
>>>>> N B xpost added
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 05 Apr 2022 10:42:47 -0400
>>>>> Michael Trew<michael.trew@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Deadnaming" is when a transgender person is called by a name of the
>>>>>> gender they utilized before transitioning, or a name associated with
>>>>>> their biological gender."
>>>>
>>>> "Biological gender" is an abomination.
>>>
>>> Um... OK?
>>
>> As somebody has pointed out, "gender" is sometimes used as a euphemism
>> for "sex". That's normally clear from context, and sometimes it doesn't
>> matter.
>>
>> But the word "gender" is more useful when you want to distinguish the
>> biological stuff (sex) from the social stuff that society piles on top
>> of it (gender roles, gender identity). So, biological sex vs. social
>> gender.
>>
>> Saying "biological gender" (or "social sex") just muddies the water.
>>
>>>>>> Deadnaming... good grief, I guess I learned a new term today. Sorry,
>>>>>> but that fellow was born a man, regardless of what he/she/it internally
>>>>>> thinks. I don't care for the Carlson fellow, but I have to agree, I
>>>>>> wouldn't delete my message either.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> While I'm at it, the use of the word "they" as a pronoun for one single
>>>>>> person who disagrees with the gender they were born with *really*
>>>>>> bothers me. It's quite grammatically incorrect, as "they" is a plural.
>>>>>> Male or Female; it's a simple concept.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why is this just now an issue, and wasn't an issue for centuries prior?
>>>>>> People are just bizarre. Don't bring up the very small percentage of
>>>>>> people born with both biological parts, as that's a whole other case
>>>>>> beyond their control; and that isn't something new.
>>>>>
>>>>> New word here?
>>>>> I'd imagine Quinn might like to chip in on this.
>>>>
>>>> Easy. It's impolite to use a name that a person doesn't wish to be
>>>> addressed by, and even more impolite to use a wrong gender, that's it.
>>>> Insisting you know the gender, or profession, or religion of another
>>>> person better than the person themself makes you an ass.
>>>
>>> If someone corrects me on their name, I will adapt. I'm regularly
>>> called "Mike", and I don't prefer that name. I'll correct you once or
>>> twice, but some people are insistent, so I let it go. It's not the end
>>> of the world.
>>
>> Switching from "Michael" to "Mike" won't greatly change what kind of
>> person people think you are, specifically, what gender you are. You
>> might not enjoy being called "Michelle" as much.
>>
>>> Call me old-fashioned if you will, but I associate with
>>> people who you can clearly tell male vs. female.
>>>
>>> I don't outright pick fights with anyone else over their "identity", but
>>> if one of the stereotypical "transgender" "men" were to insist on being
>>> called a female,
>>
>> I'm not female and don't want to be "called a female", but I'm a rather
>> feminine person, so being called a "man" or "he" makes me uncomfortable,
>> and as if I won't just naturally blend in with all my women friends.
>>
>>> I wouldn't degrade them, but I'd simply avoid that
>>> person, because that just makes me uncomfortable. I live in a rather
>>> traditional area, and meeting someone like that is pretty rare.
>>
>> Well, maybe I can't complain, because "manly men" make me uncomfortable,
>> and we may all need to be allowed such preferences.
>>
>> But not all trans people are what you think of as "stereotypical" - I
>> can't imagine you'd be uncomfortable with her:
>>
>> <https://youtu.be/2FjLssg8pN0>
>>
>> It's actually fascinating that she has an identical twin brother.
>>
>> <https://youtu.be/i16F31RQKlM?t=468>
>
> All fair points. When I think of "trans-gender", I think of the pushy
> type trying to make a statement, as typically depicted. Average people,
> I wouldn't have a problem with.

If you imagine trans people "as they are depicted" rather than "as they
come", you already have a problem. Probably starting with too little
exposure. Having met several dozen of them personally, I don't have an
idea of a typical trans woman any more.

--
Luthor: Otis, my good man, forcing women into loving you
is the underpinning of a toxic relationship.
Otis: But you love toxic relationships.
-- Supergirl S06E17

In alt.usage.english, on Thu, 14 Apr 2022 18:05:38 -0400, Michael Trew
<michael.trew@att.net> wrote:

>On 4/12/2022 12:50, Quinn C wrote:
>> * Michael Trew:
>>
>>> On 4/6/2022 18:28, Quinn C wrote:
>>>> * Kerr-Mudd, John:
>>>>
>>>>> N B xpost added
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 05 Apr 2022 10:42:47 -0400
>>>>> Michael Trew<michael.trew@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Deadnaming" is when a transgender person is called by a name of the
>>>>>> gender they utilized before transitioning, or a name associated with
>>>>>> their biological gender."
>>>>
>>>> "Biological gender" is an abomination.

Your remarks below are pretty good, but "abomination" is much too strong
a word given the situation.

>>> Um... OK?
>>
>> As somebody has pointed out, "gender" is sometimes used as a euphemism
>> for "sex". That's normally clear from context, and sometimes it doesn't
>> matter.

Yes, I didn't like that, and wanted people to say sex when they meant
the difference between male and female. Gender is a grammatical term
referring to nouns, pronounns and in some languages verbs and
adjectives, which are either masculine or feminine. It's not about
biology.

>> But the word "gender" is more useful when you want to distinguish the
>> biological stuff (sex) from the social stuff that society piles on top
>> of it (gender roles, gender identity). So, biological sex vs. social
>> gender.

But I've almost accepted that when people hear "sex" they don't think
simply male or female. They think about sexual relations and then maybe
about weird forms of sexual relations, and "gender" might slow them down
on that. (If you say peanut butter, some people think about sexual
relations.)

>> Saying "biological gender" (or "social sex") just muddies the water.

What do you suggest instead. Birth sex?

Biological sex? That has a problem if a guy has been castrated (they do
that, don't they?) is he still biologically a guy?

Genetic sex? They can't change your genes, I think. Although I am
confused about some medical treatments for diseases where they talk
about thiat iiuc. Maybe you can change the genes of newly made cells
but most cells are decades old and arent' changing.

>>>>>> Deadnaming... good grief, I guess I learned a new term today. Sorry,
>>>>>> but that fellow was born a man, regardless of what he/she/it internally
>>>>>> thinks. I don't care for the Carlson fellow, but I have to agree, I
>>>>>> wouldn't delete my message either.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> While I'm at it, the use of the word "they" as a pronoun for one single
>>>>>> person who disagrees with the gender they were born with *really*
>>>>>> bothers me. It's quite grammatically incorrect, as "they" is a plural.
>>>>>> Male or Female; it's a simple concept.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why is this just now an issue, and wasn't an issue for centuries prior?
>>>>>> People are just bizarre. Don't bring up the very small percentage of
>>>>>> people born with both biological parts, as that's a whole other case
>>>>>> beyond their control; and that isn't something new.
>>>>>
>>>>> New word here?
>>>>> I'd imagine Quinn might like to chip in on this.
>>>>
>>>> Easy. It's impolite to use a name that a person doesn't wish to be
>>>> addressed by, and even more impolite to use a wrong gender, that's it.
>>>> Insisting you know the gender, or profession, or religion of another
>>>> person better than the person themself makes you an ass.
>>>
>>> If someone corrects me on their name, I will adapt. I'm regularly
>>> called "Mike", and I don't prefer that name. I'll correct you once or
>>> twice, but some people are insistent, so I let it go. It's not the end
>>> of the world.
>>
>> Switching from "Michael" to "Mike" won't greatly change what kind of
>> person people think you are, specifically, what gender you are. You
>> might not enjoy being called "Michelle" as much.
>>
>>> Call me old-fashioned if you will, but I associate with
>>> people who you can clearly tell male vs. female.
>>>
>>> I don't outright pick fights with anyone else over their "identity", but
>>> if one of the stereotypical "transgender" "men" were to insist on being
>>> called a female,
>>
>> I'm not female and don't want to be "called a female", but I'm a rather
>> feminine person, so being called a "man" or "he" makes me uncomfortable,
>> and as if I won't just naturally blend in with all my women friends.
>>
>>> I wouldn't degrade them, but I'd simply avoid that
>>> person, because that just makes me uncomfortable. I live in a rather
>>> traditional area, and meeting someone like that is pretty rare.
>>
>> Well, maybe I can't complain, because "manly men" make me uncomfortable,
>> and we may all need to be allowed such preferences.
>>
>> But not all trans people are what you think of as "stereotypical" - I
>> can't imagine you'd be uncomfortable with her:
>>
>> <https://youtu.be/2FjLssg8pN0>
>>
>> It's actually fascinating that she has an identical twin brother.
>>
>> <https://youtu.be/i16F31RQKlM?t=468>
>
>All fair points. When I think of "trans-gender", I think of the pushy
>type trying to make a statement, as typically depicted. Average people,
>I wouldn't have a problem with.

--
Please say where you live, or what
area's English you are asking about.
So your question or answer makes sense.
. .
I have lived all my life in the USA,
Western Pa. Indianapolis, Chicago,
Brooklyn, Baltimore.

* micky:

> In alt.usage.english, on Thu, 14 Apr 2022 18:05:38 -0400, Michael Trew
> <michael.trew@att.net> wrote:
>
>>On 4/12/2022 12:50, Quinn C wrote:
>>> * Michael Trew:
>>>
>>>> On 4/6/2022 18:28, Quinn C wrote:
>>>>> * Kerr-Mudd, John:
>>>>>
>>>>>> N B xpost added
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 05 Apr 2022 10:42:47 -0400
>>>>>> Michael Trew<michael.trew@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Deadnaming" is when a transgender person is called by a name of the
>>>>>>> gender they utilized before transitioning, or a name associated with
>>>>>>> their biological gender."
>>>>>
>>>>> "Biological gender" is an abomination.
>
> Your remarks below are pretty good, but "abomination" is much too strong
> a word given the situation.

Fair enough. In alt.usage.english, we care about language, sometimes too
much, so that may have lead to a stronger expression than in normal
life.

>>>> Um... OK?
>>>
>>> As somebody has pointed out, "gender" is sometimes used as a euphemism
>>> for "sex". That's normally clear from context, and sometimes it doesn't
>>> matter.
>
> Yes, I didn't like that, and wanted people to say sex when they meant
> the difference between male and female. Gender is a grammatical term
> referring to nouns, pronounns and in some languages verbs and
> adjectives, which are either masculine or feminine. It's not about
> biology.
>
>>> But the word "gender" is more useful when you want to distinguish the
>>> biological stuff (sex) from the social stuff that society piles on top
>>> of it (gender roles, gender identity). So, biological sex vs. social
>>> gender.
>
> But I've almost accepted that when people hear "sex" they don't think
> simply male or female. They think about sexual relations and then maybe
> about weird forms of sexual relations, and "gender" might slow them down
> on that. (If you say peanut butter, some people think about sexual
> relations.)
>
>>> Saying "biological gender" (or "social sex") just muddies the water.
>
> What do you suggest instead. Birth sex?
>
> Biological sex?

Yes.

> That has a problem if a guy has been castrated (they do
> that, don't they?)

"They"? What "they"? Ah well, I know one, he had testicular cancer.

> is he still biologically a guy?

Still biologically male. Maybe "a man", but "biologically a guy" sounds
weird to me. Whether someone is "a guy" depends on how the person
presents.

That feeling's even stronger for "dude". Not every man, even
male-presenting, is "a dude". I don't know if anyone ever referred to me
as "a dude", back when I was wearing men's clothes and hairstyle; I've
never heard it, and I would've found it awkward. I thought I was a man,
but I was never a dude, a bloke, or a tech-bro, even though I'm working
in IT.

But yes, biological sex is a complex property including genetics,
anatomy and hormones. That's why some people aren't strictly male or
female.

> Genetic sex? They can't change your genes, I think. Although I am
> confused about some medical treatments for diseases where they talk
> about thiat iiuc. Maybe you can change the genes of newly made cells
> but most cells are decades old and arent' changing.

If you receive a bone marrow transplant, some of your blood cells will
have the genetics of the donor, not yours, including XX or XY
chromosomes.

It's just not that simple. But for most people you deal with, you don't
need to know their biology, especially not in such detail.

--
9/11 was pretty much the 9/11 of the falafel business.
-- Abed Nadir on Community

On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 10:50:32 AM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
> * micky:
> >>On 4/12/2022 12:50, Quinn C wrote:

> >>> Saying "biological gender" (or "social sex") just muddies the water.
> > What do you suggest instead. Birth sex?
> > Biological sex?
>
> Yes.

A heck of a lot better than "assigned at birth."

> > That has a problem if a guy has been castrated (they do
> > that, don't they?)
> "They"? What "they"? Ah well, I know one, he had testicular cancer.
> > is he still biologically a guy?
>
> Still biologically male. Maybe "a man", but "biologically a guy" sounds
> weird to me. Whether someone is "a guy" depends on how the person
> presents.

Behaves.

> That feeling's even stronger for "dude". Not every man, even
> male-presenting, is "a dude". I don't know if anyone ever referred to me
> as "a dude", back when

I doubt the expression goes back that far. Was it current before *The
Great Lebowski* made it a thing, other than in "dude ranch," where it
wasn't exactly complimentary?

> I was wearing men's clothes and hairstyle; I've
> never heard it, and I would've found it awkward. I thought I was a man,
> but I was never a dude, a bloke, or a tech-bro, even though I'm working
> in IT.

"tech-bro"??

> But yes, biological sex is a complex property including genetics,
> anatomy and hormones. That's why some people aren't strictly male or
> female.

Very, very few anomalies.

On Tue, 05 Apr 2022 21:59:47 +0100, Kerr-Mudd, John <admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:

>
> N B xpost added
>
> On Tue, 05 Apr 2022 10:42:47 -0400
> Michael Trew <michael.trew@att.net> wrote:
>
>> On 3/30/2022 14:14, JAB wrote:
>> > Tucker Carlson refuses to delete the tweet that got his account
>> > locked, so he has been off twitter for 5 days and counting. Fox
>> > spokesperson says he will never delete it.
>> >
>> > https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1508576590816497666
>>
>> "Carlson was commenting about the suspension of the Babylon Bee and
>> Charlie Kirk over respective tweets calling Rachel Levine, the assistant
>> secretary for health at the Department of Health and Human Services, a
>> male. Levine is a biological male but identifies as a transgender female.
>>
>> “But wait,” Carlson’s tweet said. “Both of these tweets are true.”
>>
>> Twitter deleted the tweet, and a spokesperson for the company said in a
>> statement to the Daily Wire that it had violated its terms of service..
>>
>> “We prohibit targeting others with repeated slurs, tropes or other
>> content that intends to dehumanize, degrade or reinforce negative or
>> harmful stereotypes about a protected category,” said the spokesman.
>> “This includes targeted misgendering or deadnaming of transgender
>> individuals.”
>>
>> "Deadnaming" is when a transgender person is called by a name of the
>> gender they utilized before transitioning, or a name associated with
>> their biological gender."
>>
>> ----------------------------
>>
>> Deadnaming... good grief, I guess I learned a new term today. Sorry,
>> but that fellow was born a man, regardless of what he/she/it internally
>> thinks. I don't care for the Carlson fellow, but I have to agree, I
>> wouldn't delete my message either.
>>
>> While I'm at it, the use of the word "they" as a pronoun for one single
>> person who disagrees with the gender they were born with *really*
>> bothers me. It's quite grammatically incorrect, as "they" is a plural.
>> Male or Female; it's a simple concept.
>>
>> Why is this just now an issue, and wasn't an issue for centuries prior?
>> People are just bizarre. Don't bring up the very small percentage of
>> people born with both biological parts, as that's a whole other case
>> beyond their control; and that isn't something new.
>
>
> New word here?
> I'd imagine Quinn might like to chip in on this.

Whatever he said, why can't we just have freedom of speech? Words cannot harm you, you pathetic little cocksucker. See, did you cry over that?

On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 15:40:48 +0300, micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com>
wrote:

>But I've almost accepted that when people hear "sex"
>they don't think simply male or female.

Sex has more than one meaning...context is relevant here.

>They think about sexual relations...weird forms of sexual relations

Previous "feel good" brain chemicals can/does "motivate" behavior. And
most likely, people who think they are this/that do not realize their
preferences are due to feel good brain chemicals.

On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 6:28:41 PM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
> * Kerr-Mudd, John:
> > N B xpost added
> >
> > On Tue, 05 Apr 2022 10:42:47 -0400
> > Michael Trew <michae...@att.net> wrote:
> >
> >> "Deadnaming" is when a transgender person is called by a name of the
> >> gender they utilized before transitioning, or a name associated with
> >> their biological gender."
> "Biological gender" is an abomination.
> >> Deadnaming... good grief, I guess I learned a new term today. Sorry,
> >> but that fellow was born a man, regardless of what he/she/it internally
> >> thinks. I don't care for the Carlson fellow, but I have to agree, I
> >> wouldn't delete my message either.
> >>
> >> While I'm at it, the use of the word "they" as a pronoun for one single
> >> person who disagrees with the gender they were born with *really*
> >> bothers me. It's quite grammatically incorrect, as "they" is a plural.
> >> Male or Female; it's a simple concept.
> >>
> >> Why is this just now an issue, and wasn't an issue for centuries prior?
> >> People are just bizarre. Don't bring up the very small percentage of
> >> people born with both biological parts, as that's a whole other case
> >> beyond their control; and that isn't something new.
> >
> > New word here?
> > I'd imagine Quinn might like to chip in on this.
> Easy. It's impolite to use a name that a person doesn't wish to be
> addressed by, and even more impolite to use a wrong gender, that's it.
> Insisting you know the gender, or profession, or religion of another
> person better than the person them self makes you an ass.

Then how should the govt. describe the gender of the person doing the walking in this video?
-- https://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/news/video-1282317/Ghost-walks-straight-closed-doors-spooky-CCTV-footage.html

* Peter T. Daniels:

> On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 10:50:32 AM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
>> * micky:
>>>>On 4/12/2022 12:50, Quinn C wrote:
>
>>>>> Saying "biological gender" (or "social sex") just muddies the water.
>>> What do you suggest instead. Birth sex?
>>> Biological sex?
>>
>> Yes.
>
> A heck of a lot better than "assigned at birth."

To me, they belong to somewhat different contexts. If you discuss
someone's gender, it's good to leave biology out of it, but sometimes,
giving "gender assigned at birth" as background information can be
useful. It is part of the person's gender history.

If there's reason for actually discussing biology, e.g. for medical
purposes, then "biological sex" is fine with me.

The two things are strongly linked in practice, but not by necessity.
Practice may change in the future.

>>> That has a problem if a guy has been castrated (they do
>>> that, don't they?)
>> "They"? What "they"? Ah well, I know one, he had testicular cancer.
>>> is he still biologically a guy?
>>
>> Still biologically male. Maybe "a man", but "biologically a guy" sounds
>> weird to me. Whether someone is "a guy" depends on how the person
>> presents.
>
> Behaves.

That's part of what I mean by presentation ("gender presentation", for
clarity), but style/attire is usually required to be categorized as a
gender. If you only change behavior, you're more likely to be perceived
as a "feminine man" or "manly woman", if even as gender-nonconforming,
or just a "soft guy" or "strong woman".

>> That feeling's even stronger for "dude". Not every man, even
>> male-presenting, is "a dude". I don't know if anyone ever referred to me
>> as "a dude", back when
>
> I doubt the expression goes back that far. Was it current before *The
> Great Lebowski* made it a thing, other than in "dude ranch," where it
> wasn't exactly complimentary?

I don't know the details, but The Great Lebowski came out 24 years ago,
which makes the past-Lebowski time both the greater part of my adult
life and all the time I've been living in a place where English is
commonly spoken. I.e. for my purposes, it's "always" been around.

I don't think it's particularly common where I live, but from
discussions online I gather that in some regions it is, and in those
places, it wouldn't be unusual to say things like "that dude over there"
or "a dude called me".

>> I was wearing men's clothes and hairstyle; I've
>> never heard it, and I would've found it awkward. I thought I was a man,
>> but I was never a dude, a bloke, or a tech-bro, even though I'm working
>> in IT.
>
> "tech-bro"??

You don't know what that is? It's not only an issue in real life, but
also a TV trope at this point, although the word may not always come up.

>> But yes, biological sex is a complex property including genetics,
>> anatomy and hormones. That's why some people aren't strictly male or
>> female.
>
> Very, very few anomalies.

But also trans people on hormones. People like to point out that a
doctor would need to know a person's biological sex, not only their
gender - yes, but for some treatment decisions, the doctor would also
have to know that the person is on hormones, meaning not all typical
conditions of their genetic sex apply.

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

On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 11:32:24 AM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
> * Peter T. Daniels:
> > On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 10:50:32 AM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
> >> * micky:
> >>>>On 4/12/2022 12:50, Quinn C wrote:
> >
> >>>>> Saying "biological gender" (or "social sex") just muddies the water.
> >>> What do you suggest instead. Birth sex?
> >>> Biological sex?
> >>
> >> Yes.
> >
> > A heck of a lot better than "assigned at birth."
> To me, they belong to somewhat different contexts. If you discuss
> someone's gender, it's good to leave biology out of it, but sometimes,
> giving "gender assigned at birth" as background information can be
> useful. It is part of the person's gender history.
>
> If there's reason for actually discussing biology, e.g. for medical
> purposes, then "biological sex" is fine with me.

Recall that I first encountered the phrase in a TV commercial for an
HUV Prep medication, which "had not been studied" in persons "AFaB."

What would psychic gender have to do with its efficacy in persons
with innate female hormones?

> The two things are strongly linked in practice, but not by necessity.
> Practice may change in the future.

Not wrt medication. (Other than psychoactive ones.)

> >>> That has a problem if a guy has been castrated (they do
> >>> that, don't they?)
> >> "They"? What "they"? Ah well, I know one, he had testicular cancer.
> >>> is he still biologically a guy?
> >> Still biologically male. Maybe "a man", but "biologically a guy" sounds
> >> weird to me. Whether someone is "a guy" depends on how the person
> >> presents.
> > Behaves.
>
> That's part of what I mean by presentation ("gender presentation", for
> clarity), but style/attire is usually required to be categorized as a
> gender. If you only change behavior, you're more likely to be perceived
> as a "feminine man" or "manly woman", if even as gender-nonconforming,
> or just a "soft guy" or "strong woman".

I'd consider wardrobe choice as an aspect of behavior. Maybe you're
thinking only of mannerisms ... aha, a hook to hang my *Jeopardy!*
observation on! --- The current champion whom Ken is drooling over,
the Canadian woman, gesticulates like a gay man! (Not surprisingly,
she was the only one who answered "Seven Years War" instead of
the parochial "French and Indian War," which was merely the American
aspect of what Churchill called the actual first World War, some 150
years before WWI.) Also, she sounds insecure about almost every
answer, because she has extreme uptalk.

> >> That feeling's even stronger for "dude". Not every man, even
> >> male-presenting, is "a dude". I don't know if anyone ever referred to me
> >> as "a dude", back when
> > I doubt the expression goes back that far. Was it current before *The
> > Great Lebowski* made it a thing, other than in "dude ranch," where it
> > wasn't exactly complimentary?
>
> I don't know the details, but The Great Lebowski came out 24 years ago,
> which makes the past-Lebowski time both the greater part of my adult
> life and all the time I've been living in a place where English is
> commonly spoken. I.e. for my purposes, it's "always" been around.
>
> I don't think it's particularly common where I live, but from
> discussions online I gather that in some regions it is, and in those
> places, it wouldn't be unusual to say things like "that dude over there"
> or "a dude called me".

I think it does occur in 3rd person as well as in the vocative.

> >> I was wearing men's clothes and hairstyle; I've
> >> never heard it, and I would've found it awkward. I thought I was a man,
> >> but I was never a dude, a bloke, or a tech-bro, even though I'm working
> >> in IT.
> > "tech-bro"??
>
> You don't know what that is? It's not only an issue in real life, but
> also a TV trope at this point, although the word may not always come up.

It was mentioned on *Wait Wait Don't Tell Me* just now! But not with
enough context to determine what it meant.

> >> But yes, biological sex is a complex property including genetics,
> >> anatomy and hormones. That's why some people aren't strictly male or
> >> female.
> > Very, very few anomalies.
>
> But also trans people on hormones. People like to point out that a
> doctor would need to know a person's biological sex, not only their
> gender - yes, but for some treatment decisions, the doctor would also
> have to know that the person is on hormones, meaning not all typical
> conditions of their genetic sex apply.

Presumably that info is in their chart. They can't get "hormones"
without a prescription.

Though my current podiatristical travails suggest that not every practitioner
consults the patient's chart before they enter the exam room. One of
the last things the quack said to me (after one year of bimonthly visits)
was "You're not diabetic!"

On 4/16/2022 11:32 AM, Quinn C wrote:
> * Peter T. Daniels:
>> Quinn C wrote:
>>> * micky:
>>>>> Quinn C wrote:
>
>>>>>> Saying "biological gender" (or "social sex") just muddies
>>>>>> the water.
>>>> What do you suggest instead. Birth sex? Biological sex?

>>> Yes.

>> A heck of a lot better than "assigned at birth."

> To me, they belong to somewhat different contexts. If you discuss
> someone's gender, it's good to leave biology out of it, but
> sometimes, giving "gender assigned at birth" as background
> information can be useful. It is part of the person's gender
> history.

> If there's reason for actually discussing biology, e.g. for medical
> purposes, then "biological sex" is fine with me.

> The two things are strongly linked in practice, but not by
> necessity. Practice may change in the future.

>>>> That has a problem if a guy has been castrated (they do that,
>>>> don't they?)
>>> "They"? What "they"? Ah well, I know one, he had testicular
>>> cancer.
>>>> is he still biologically a guy?

>>> Still biologically male. Maybe "a man", but "biologically a guy"
>>> sounds weird to me. Whether someone is "a guy" depends on how the
>>> person presents.

>> Behaves.

> That's part of what I mean by presentation ("gender presentation",
> for clarity), but style/attire is usually required to be categorized
> as a gender. If you only change behavior, you're more likely to be
> perceived as a "feminine man" or "manly woman", if even as
> gender-nonconforming, or just a "soft guy" or "strong woman".

NTTAWWThose. In the end, it would probably be easier to change people's
minds on the smaller pointthan to ry to alter their world-view.

>>> That feeling's even stronger for "dude". Not every man, even
>>> male-presenting, is "a dude". I don't know if anyone ever
>>> referred to me as "a dude", back when

>> I doubt the expression goes back that far. Was it current before
>> *The Great Lebowski* made it a thing, other than in "dude ranch,"
>> where it wasn't exactly complimentary?

The TMNTurtles, who preceded the TBL, used "dude" as a noun of direct
address, IIRC. Cowabunga, Dude!

> I don't know the details, but The Great Lebowski came out 24 years
> ago, which makes the past-Lebowski time both the greater part of my
> adult life and all the time I've been living in a place where English
> is commonly spoken. I.e. for my purposes, it's "always" been around.

> I don't think it's particularly common where I live, but from
> discussions online I gather that in some regions it is, and in those
> places, it wouldn't be unusual to say things like "that dude over
> there" or "a dude called me".

>>> I was wearing men's clothes and hairstyle; I've never heard it,
>>> and I would've found it awkward. I thought I was a man, but I was
>>> never a dude, a bloke, or a tech-bro, even though I'm working in
>>> IT.

>> "tech-bro"??

> You don't know what that is? It's not only an issue in real life,
> but also a TV trope at this point, although the word may not always
> come up.

Tech-sib? Does "tech-bro" imply nerdly machismo?

>>> But yes, biological sex is a complex property including
>>> genetics, anatomy and hormones. That's why some people aren't
>>> strictly male or female.

>> Very, very few anomalies.

> But also trans people on hormones. People like to point out that a
> doctor would need to know a person's biological sex, not only their
> gender - yes, but for some treatment decisions, the doctor would
> also have to know that the person is on hormones, meaning not all
> typical conditions of their genetic sex apply.

They (sing) could ask.

On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 12:24:08 PM UTC-4, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 11:32:24 AM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
> > * Peter T. Daniels:
> > > On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 10:50:32 AM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
> > >> * micky:
> > >>>>On 4/12/2022 12:50, Quinn C wrote:
> > >
> > >>>>> Saying "biological gender" (or "social sex") just muddies the water.
> > >>> What do you suggest instead. Birth sex?
> > >>> Biological sex?
> > >>
> > >> Yes.
> > >
> > > A heck of a lot better than "assigned at birth."
> > To me, they belong to somewhat different contexts. If you discuss
> > someone's gender, it's good to leave biology out of it, but sometimes,
> > giving "gender assigned at birth" as background information can be
> > useful. It is part of the person's gender history.
> >
> > If there's reason for actually discussing biology, e.g. for medical
> > purposes, then "biological sex" is fine with me.
> Recall that I first encountered the phrase in a TV commercial for an
> HUV Prep medication, which "had not been studied" in persons "AFaB."
>
> What would psychic gender have to do with its efficacy in persons
> with innate female hormones?
> > The two things are strongly linked in practice, but not by necessity.
> > Practice may change in the future.
> Not wrt medication. (Other than psychoactive ones.)
> > >>> That has a problem if a guy has been castrated (they do
> > >>> that, don't they?)
> > >> "They"? What "they"? Ah well, I know one, he had testicular cancer.
> > >>> is he still biologically a guy?
> > >> Still biologically male. Maybe "a man", but "biologically a guy" sounds
> > >> weird to me. Whether someone is "a guy" depends on how the person
> > >> presents.
> > > Behaves.
> >
> > That's part of what I mean by presentation ("gender presentation", for
> > clarity), but style/attire is usually required to be categorized as a
> > gender. If you only change behavior, you're more likely to be perceived
> > as a "feminine man" or "manly woman", if even as gender-nonconforming,
> > or just a "soft guy" or "strong woman".
> I'd consider wardrobe choice as an aspect of behavior. Maybe you're
> thinking only of mannerisms ... aha, a hook to hang my *Jeopardy!*
> observation on! --- The current champion whom Ken is drooling over,
> the Canadian woman, gesticulates like a gay man! (Not surprisingly,
> she was the only one who answered "Seven Years War" instead of
> the parochial "French and Indian War," which was merely the American
> aspect of what Churchill called the actual first World War, some 150
> years before WWI.) Also, she sounds insecure about almost every
> answer, because she has extreme uptalk.
> > >> That feeling's even stronger for "dude". Not every man, even
> > >> male-presenting, is "a dude". I don't know if anyone ever referred to me
> > >> as "a dude", back when
> > > I doubt the expression goes back that far. Was it current before *The
> > > Great Lebowski* made it a thing, other than in "dude ranch," where it
> > > wasn't exactly complimentary?
> >
> > I don't know the details, but The Great Lebowski came out 24 years ago,
> > which makes the past-Lebowski time both the greater part of my adult
> > life and all the time I've been living in a place where English is
> > commonly spoken. I.e. for my purposes, it's "always" been around.
> >
> > I don't think it's particularly common where I live, but from
> > discussions online I gather that in some regions it is, and in those
> > places, it wouldn't be unusual to say things like "that dude over there"
> > or "a dude called me".
> I think it does occur in 3rd person as well as in the vocative.
> > >> I was wearing men's clothes and hairstyle; I've
> > >> never heard it, and I would've found it awkward. I thought I was a man,
> > >> but I was never a dude, a bloke, or a tech-bro, even though I'm working
> > >> in IT.
> > > "tech-bro"??
> >
> > You don't know what that is? It's not only an issue in real life, but
> > also a TV trope at this point, although the word may not always come up.
>
> It was mentioned on *Wait Wait Don't Tell Me* just now! But not with
> enough context to determine what it meant.
>
> > >> But yes, biological sex is a complex property including genetics,
> > >> anatomy and hormones. That's why some people aren't strictly male or
> > >> female.
> > > Very, very few anomalies.
> >
> > But also trans people on hormones. People like to point out that a
> > doctor would need to know a person's biological sex, not only their
> > gender - yes, but for some treatment decisions, the doctor would also
> > have to know that the person is on hormones, meaning not all typical
> > conditions of their genetic sex apply.
>
> Presumably that info is in their chart. They can't get "hormones"
> without a prescription.

Can this person if they wish to change their gender:
-- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4GmuNje8oc

On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 1:58:39 PM UTC-4, bruce bowser wrote:
> On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 12:24:08 PM UTC-4, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 11:32:24 AM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
> > > * Peter T. Daniels:
> > > > On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 10:50:32 AM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:

> > > >> But yes, biological sex is a complex property including genetics,
> > > >> anatomy and hormones. That's why some people aren't strictly male or
> > > >> female.
> > > > Very, very few anomalies.
> > > But also trans people on hormones. People like to point out that a
> > > doctor would need to know a person's biological sex, not only their
> > > gender - yes, but for some treatment decisions, the doctor would also
> > > have to know that the person is on hormones, meaning not all typical
> > > conditions of their genetic sex apply.
> > Presumably that info is in their chart. They can't get "hormones"
> > without a prescription.
>
> Can this person if they wish to change their gender:
> -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4GmuNje8oc

Sorry, I don't understand Portuguese. The sing-song of her voice
is odd.

* CDB:

> On 4/16/2022 11:32 AM, Quinn C wrote:
>> * Peter T. Daniels:
>>> Quinn C wrote:

>>>> Still biologically male. Maybe "a man", but "biologically a guy"
>>>> sounds weird to me. Whether someone is "a guy" depends on how the
>>>> person presents.
>
>>> Behaves.
>
>> That's part of what I mean by presentation ("gender presentation",
>> for clarity), but style/attire is usually required to be categorized
>> as a gender. If you only change behavior, you're more likely to be
>> perceived as a "feminine man" or "manly woman", if even as
>> gender-nonconforming, or just a "soft guy" or "strong woman".
>
> NTTAWWThose. In the end, it would probably be easier to change people's
> minds on the smaller pointthan to ry to alter their world-view.

Well, I tried that for 50 years. It was a niche in which I survived, but
not really fulfilling my needs. Even for those for whom this is the
exact right place, I don't think society at large appreciates them.

>>>> That feeling's even stronger for "dude". Not every man, even
>>>> male-presenting, is "a dude". I don't know if anyone ever
>>>> referred to me as "a dude", back when
>
>>> I doubt the expression goes back that far. Was it current before
>>> *The Great Lebowski* made it a thing, other than in "dude ranch,"
>>> where it wasn't exactly complimentary?
>
> The TMNTurtles, who preceded the TBL, used "dude" as a noun of direct
> address, IIRC. Cowabunga, Dude!
>
>> I don't know the details, but The Great Lebowski came out 24 years
>> ago, which makes the past-Lebowski time both the greater part of my
>> adult life and all the time I've been living in a place where English
>> is commonly spoken. I.e. for my purposes, it's "always" been around.
>
>> I don't think it's particularly common where I live, but from
>> discussions online I gather that in some regions it is, and in those
>> places, it wouldn't be unusual to say things like "that dude over
>> there" or "a dude called me".
>
>>>> I was wearing men's clothes and hairstyle; I've never heard it,
>>>> and I would've found it awkward. I thought I was a man, but I was
>>>> never a dude, a bloke, or a tech-bro, even though I'm working in
>>>> IT.
>
>>> "tech-bro"??
>
>> You don't know what that is? It's not only an issue in real life,
>> but also a TV trope at this point, although the word may not always
>> come up.
>
> Tech-sib? Does "tech-bro" imply nerdly machismo?

Yes. The "bro" presumably is evocative of fratboys.

Anyway, tech-bros are supposed to be stereotypically masculine and
misogynistic or at least excluding women by creating an atmosphere that
caters to their gender-typical preferences.

It includes those who think women can never be good engineers, or be
good at video games; who like fraternizing in ways that many women
wouldn't feel comfortable in (e.g. at a strip club), or would be
themselves uncomfortable if women did join.

There used to be a little of that years back when we were still a
startup - there were ongoing foosball competitions which had a
rough-and-tumble atmosphere that made it hard for women or me to join
in, and that's where several of the men became closer. But overall, not
a lot in that direction at my work, which I appreciate. Now that we're
part of a big company, more corporate and staid, it's unlikely to come
back.

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

* Peter T. Daniels:

> On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 11:32:24 AM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
>> * Peter T. Daniels:
>>> On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 10:50:32 AM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
>>>> * micky:
>>>>>>On 4/12/2022 12:50, Quinn C wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> Saying "biological gender" (or "social sex") just muddies the water.
>>>>> What do you suggest instead. Birth sex?
>>>>> Biological sex?
>>>>
>>>> Yes.
>>>
>>> A heck of a lot better than "assigned at birth."
>> To me, they belong to somewhat different contexts. If you discuss
>> someone's gender, it's good to leave biology out of it, but sometimes,
>> giving "gender assigned at birth" as background information can be
>> useful. It is part of the person's gender history.
>>
>> If there's reason for actually discussing biology, e.g. for medical
>> purposes, then "biological sex" is fine with me.
>
> Recall that I first encountered the phrase in a TV commercial for an
> HUV Prep medication, which "had not been studied" in persons "AFaB."
>
> What would psychic gender have to do with its efficacy in persons
> with innate female hormones?

Yeah, that's a context where biology is topical. I guess in this case,
"assigned X at birth" acts as a euphemism, because some people are
uncomfortable with any reference to their reproductive biology.

Of course that presupposes that you know the meaning. The expression
isn't hard to interpret, once you've processed how gender works (some
people get assigned the role of Romeo, others that of Juliet.)

If they actually used the acronym, that adds another layer of
insiderdom. Maybe they were thinking that this specific piece of
information is only relevant to trans men and their partners, and they
would know. But that doesn't sound like good practice.

In the gay village, I sometimes see ad campaigns aimed at "men who have
sex with men". I found that wording strange at first, but the meaning is
obvious, and by now, I understand the rationale behind not using "gay".

>> The two things are strongly linked in practice, but not by necessity.
>> Practice may change in the future.
>
> Not wrt medication. (Other than psychoactive ones.)

No, the practice of assigning gender may change. Presumably towards not
assigning any. That's already an option in Germany, but for the moment,
only if a doctor says that sex is ambiguous. They can also assign the
"third" gender instead, in that case.

>>>>> That has a problem if a guy has been castrated (they do
>>>>> that, don't they?)
>>>> "They"? What "they"? Ah well, I know one, he had testicular cancer.
>>>>> is he still biologically a guy?
>>>> Still biologically male. Maybe "a man", but "biologically a guy" sounds
>>>> weird to me. Whether someone is "a guy" depends on how the person
>>>> presents.
>>> Behaves.
>>
>> That's part of what I mean by presentation ("gender presentation", for
>> clarity), but style/attire is usually required to be categorized as a
>> gender. If you only change behavior, you're more likely to be perceived
>> as a "feminine man" or "manly woman", if even as gender-nonconforming,
>> or just a "soft guy" or "strong woman".
>
> I'd consider wardrobe choice as an aspect of behavior. Maybe you're
> thinking only of mannerisms ... aha, a hook to hang my *Jeopardy!*
> observation on! --- The current champion whom Ken is drooling over,
> the Canadian woman,

Well, she *is* a sweetheart.

> gesticulates like a gay man!

I guess that's a way to describe it. I did find it distracting a few
times, but hadn't thought of that comparison.

> (Not surprisingly,
> she was the only one who answered "Seven Years War" instead of
> the parochial "French and Indian War," which was merely the American
> aspect of what Churchill called the actual first World War, some 150
> years before WWI.) Also, she sounds insecure about almost every
> answer, because she has extreme uptalk.

Her facial expression also. She doesn't seem to lack confidence when
she's talking freely, so I'm not sure where that comes from. It could be
a learned behavior (I've myself learned to not be too dry when
correcting people, because it gets interpreted as arrogance) or a
reaction to pressure.

>>>> That feeling's even stronger for "dude". Not every man, even
>>>> male-presenting, is "a dude". I don't know if anyone ever referred to me
>>>> as "a dude", back when
>>> I doubt the expression goes back that far. Was it current before *The
>>> Great Lebowski* made it a thing, other than in "dude ranch," where it
>>> wasn't exactly complimentary?
>>
>> I don't know the details, but The Great Lebowski came out 24 years ago,
>> which makes the past-Lebowski time both the greater part of my adult
>> life and all the time I've been living in a place where English is
>> commonly spoken. I.e. for my purposes, it's "always" been around.
>>
>> I don't think it's particularly common where I live, but from
>> discussions online I gather that in some regions it is, and in those
>> places, it wouldn't be unusual to say things like "that dude over there"
>> or "a dude called me".
>
> I think it does occur in 3rd person as well as in the vocative.

I'd separate an emotive "Dude!", because I don't think that's
necessarily addressing anyone in particular. I myself sometimes say
"Boy!" as an exclamation, with no regard who I'm talking to.

>>>> I was wearing men's clothes and hairstyle; I've
>>>> never heard it, and I would've found it awkward. I thought I was a man,
>>>> but I was never a dude, a bloke, or a tech-bro, even though I'm working
>>>> in IT.
>>> "tech-bro"??
>>
>> You don't know what that is? It's not only an issue in real life, but
>> also a TV trope at this point, although the word may not always come up.
>
> It was mentioned on *Wait Wait Don't Tell Me* just now! But not with
> enough context to determine what it meant.

<https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tech_bro>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brogrammer>
>>>> But yes, biological sex is a complex property including genetics,
>>>> anatomy and hormones. That's why some people aren't strictly male or
>>>> female.
>>> Very, very few anomalies.
>>
>> But also trans people on hormones. People like to point out that a
>> doctor would need to know a person's biological sex, not only their
>> gender - yes, but for some treatment decisions, the doctor would also
>> have to know that the person is on hormones, meaning not all typical
>> conditions of their genetic sex apply.
>
> Presumably that info is in their chart. They can't get "hormones"
> without a prescription.

Not legally, but those prescriptions aren't easy to get in many places.

Not that long ago, almost everywhere, and it's usually a long process.
Janet Mock is almost a generation younger than me, and surely not the
only one of her age who'd say she "wouldn't have survived without black
market hormones".

A reason why every doctor should know the basics of transgender
medicine.

> Though my current podiatristical travails suggest that not every practitioner
> consults the patient's chart before they enter the exam room. One of
> the last things the quack said to me (after one year of bimonthly visits)
> was "You're not diabetic!"

Every profession has some of those.

Wiktionary thinks that "podiatry" is the US-specific term for chiropody,
but the Wikipedia redirects are the opposite way.

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

Sat, 16 Apr 2022 13:05:42 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
<grammatim@verizon.net> scribeva:

>On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 1:58:39 PM UTC-4, bruce bowser wrote:
>> On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 12:24:08 PM UTC-4, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> > On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 11:32:24 AM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
>> > > * Peter T. Daniels:
>> > > > On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 10:50:32 AM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
>
>> > > >> But yes, biological sex is a complex property including genetics,
>> > > >> anatomy and hormones. That's why some people aren't strictly male or
>> > > >> female.
>> > > > Very, very few anomalies.
>> > > But also trans people on hormones. People like to point out that a
>> > > doctor would need to know a person's biological sex, not only their
>> > > gender - yes, but for some treatment decisions, the doctor would also
>> > > have to know that the person is on hormones, meaning not all typical
>> > > conditions of their genetic sex apply.
>> > Presumably that info is in their chart. They can't get "hormones"
>> > without a prescription.
>>
>> Can this person if they wish to change their gender:
>> -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4GmuNje8oc
>
>Sorry, I don't understand Portuguese. The sing-song of her voice
>is odd.

Yes. And not typical of Brazilian Portuguese. I suspect a
computer-generated voice.
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com

On 4/16/2022 4:05 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> bruce bowser wrote:
>> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> Quinn C wrote:
>>>> Peter T. Daniels:
>>>>> Quinn C wrote:

>>>>>> But yes, biological sex is a complex property including
>>>>>> genetics, anatomy and hormones. That's why some people
>>>>>> aren't strictly male or female.
>>>>> Very, very few anomalies.
>>>> But also trans people on hormones. People like to point out
>>>> that a doctor would need to know a person's biological sex, not
>>>> only their gender - yes, but for some treatment decisions, the
>>>> doctor would also have to know that the person is on hormones,
>>>> meaning not all typical conditions of their genetic sex apply.
>>> Presumably that info is in their chart. They can't get
>>> "hormones" without a prescription.

>> Can this person if they wish to change their gender: --
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4GmuNje8oc

> Sorry, I don't understand Portuguese. The sing-song of her voice is
> odd.

The mulher is a possible apparition. Bowser is barking back to his old
theme.