aw, d00d. i didnt even notice that.

Ibby is still derivative of Ibram.

shit... d00dette.



but I call Ripley Ippy. hmmm... I'll try.

It's pronounced "Os Wee Pay"

Call people what you want. If you want them to respect you and respond to you in a pleasant and articulate way, you might want to refer to them in the way they prefer, no? QED as far as I can see. Me, I'm done with histrionic allegedly-young-adult attention whores who resort to name calling on a far too regular basis (;) for the slooooow...), and their cheerleading squad. The rest, I think, have valid points on both side of the argument, and have presented them fairly eloquently. I particularly liked Infi's black comparison, it may not be 100% allegoriacal -who knows- but it was thoughtful and well presented imho.

I didn't say it had no effect on the pysche, but that any effect is entirely cultural.

There are many places in the world where people go their whole lives not seeing people of a different colour. In such a place a child is unlikely to consider their skin colour in any deeper terms than the shape of their foot, the colour of their hair, or the length of their fingers. It is simply a physical feature. They'd be aware of it. But not as an important issue of identity. Race likewise only becomes an important coponent of identity when set against other races. Unless one is raised in a place where races mix or are in tension, it need never be something consciously thought about during childhood.

There is nothing inherent about skin colour or 'race' to affect the development of a child. However, ALL children go through psycho-sexual development as they grow. beginning (if I remember my child psych correctly) around the age of three.

Psycho-sexual development is fundamental to the human experience, it is a fundamental process which all healthy humans go through. The way that manifests and what it means differs from one to another culture, but the fact of it's happening is universal.

Skin colour, literally is skin deep. There are no differences in brain structure, or in brain chemistry relating to skin colour.

Psycho-sexual identities appear to have correlating brain structrures and brain chemistry. Whilst the differences between 'male' and 'female' brains are minor, they are measurable. Work in his field continues to show that such measurable differences also exist between the brains of straight, gay and bisexual people. Similarly it seems from the work being done in this field that measurable differences exist between the brains of people with expected gender identities and people with trans gender identities.

It is really not the same thing as waking up one morning and thinking one is black when one is in fact white.



[eta] further to that: you could lock a child in a room from the age of 2 with no human company beyond the presentation of meals and the taking away of waste, and whilst they will probably be unable to get to grips woth language or social interaction, they will still have been through psycho-sexual development. The results would be warped, and confused, but the process would still have occurred.

Y'know, I was thinking about this thread when I went to bed last night. And it struck me that in fact it is academic. Because, unless my memory is more fucked up than I realise, Ibs never said she was a girl trapped in a boy's body. What Ibs actually said was that the CIS Male identity simply doesn't fit. A female identity also doesn't entirely fit. Ibs didn't want us to call her a 'she' at first. her preferred pronoun was in fact 'they'.

Most of us, myself included, balked at the idea of using 'they' and 'their' when referring to a named individual because it jars grammatically. 'She' and 'her' was the compromise position. Neither 'he' nor 'she' is entirely accurate, but of the two, 'she' is closest.

I may be misremembering this, but that's how I read it. Ibs is exploring her femininity, not claiming to be female.

I missed Infi's black comparison, did it involve pots and kettles?

No one said they were the same, but there are similarities and I believe the analogy warranted discussion.
For example - lets take your above scenario and introduce a person of a different color into that place.
Now what happens? How do you think that would impact/affect both "sides"?

yes&no. in actuality I reject the notion of binary gender entirely, and i am who i am. when you put the broken sexist blinders back on and "see gender" again, after that, i fall very much on the feminine side. Since I don't pass very well, and since it quite triggers my dysphoria on the matter to be reminded of that by constantly being called "sir" or "him", I'm pushing towards the other extreme stylistically until it no longer happens, until I "pass", for my own sake. I agree with Kate Bornstein that it's entirely possible to live a non-gendered life, when the haters and the bigots and the willfully ignorant get out of the way. but that isn't where I am right now. Right now I ask to be treated as a woman, with pronouns to match. some people just aren't very good at respect and decency is all. and some are just bigots.

yeah. Ok I get that. The rejection of polarised gender was what i was trying to get at but failing :p

You missed the LARGEST group - those of us who aren't used to referring to you as a she when we've basically been condition over years to refer to you as a he.

Many of us, I assume, mean no disrespect to you and do not fall into any of those groups you've defined.

As I said before, i completely respect that it's hard to get used to. I'm sure it's going to take my parents years to get to that point.
there's a big difference between making a pronoun mistake and willfully deciding not to even try and get it right.
Henry is clearly the latter. IM appears to be going down that path in this thread and others.
other people are hit and miss. i dont hold it against someone if they get it wrong occasionally, but when they get it consistently wrong, even after a polite correction, it's another matter.
I'm not going around assuming that every "he" i get comes from a place of malice. its the ones that DO come from that place i have a problem with.

So, if I disagree with you about something and I say "That Ibby, she's just a dumb cuntless.", we're cool right?

sounds good to me!

"it just makes you a cunt is all"
 

This is your opinion, one which may or may not have a basis in fact.

What follows, however, is indisputably FACT...

You are XY (male), not XX (female).

Appeals to shifty cultural definitions or 'courtesy' cannot change this fact.

You are 'he'.

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

You may submit to surgery and injections to alter your flesh so you appear female, but -- till you re-code your DNA -- you're 'he'.



Again: self-define as you like, and any who interact with you should feel free to call you 'she'. For myself, however, I choose to call you 'he'.

In my view: you're disturbed, disordered, and I'll not contribute to your delusion. I don't oppose you, but I won't stand with you.

'nuff said.

Someone needs a cunt punt.