[BigV]

Total fail.

Originally Posted by henry quirk

"I don't remember any demand from Ibby to ignore anything."

He demands to be called 'she'. To do so I have ignore the fact that he is 'he'.

To paraphrase: "Cite or it didn't happen." Don't go all tw on us and shift the responsibility away from you to support your statement.

Originally Posted by henry quirk

Stop asserting I fixate on 'cock'. The mention of 'cock' (as sexual characteristic extending out from genes) is not the crux of my position.

If 'you' need to fixate on 'cock', please do.

You introduce the word 'cock', not me. You, yourself, open this very thread with "penis". Remember this?

Originally Posted by hq

If he has a penis, is genetically male, then -- despite *self-definition -- he is 'he'.

Not the crux of your position? It is the ONLY factor in post after post after post from you. Chromosomes --> physical characteristics --> gendered pronoun. You say fixation, I say focus, focus on your own words.

Originally Posted by henry quirk

'He' denotes a state of being, in this case a state of being dictated by a specific chromosome.

No. "He" is just a pronoun that is used in many ways, all over the place. In this case, a specific chromosome "imparts certain physical characteristics", not the meaning of words.

Originally Posted by henry quirk

You wish to conflate all manner of shifty, cultural, notions about maleness into my position.

Stop it.

In this thread I'm only addressing the foundation for 'he' and she', for real and not-real.

Your definition of the foundation of 'he' and 'she' is unrealistically strict and narrow. It is incomplete and unrealistic. Given the completely rigid understanding of gender and pronouns you demonstrate, I was going to say you lack imagination. But that would be wrong. If you truly believe what you're writing, you have no lack of imagination, you simply lack reality.

Originally Posted by henry quirk

"how can you support this statement?"

It's an assumption based on his self-description as 'transgender woman' meaning he, at one time, had male physical characteristics (characteristics extending directly from a specific chromosome pattern) and that he altered or diminished those characteristics (but not the source of those characteristics).

Here you contradict your own argument. You're all "It's the chromosomes, stupid" but here you are just going on someone's statement. How is that verifiably "real" and not "not-real"? It's ok to assume, but your justification for that assumption is some distance from what you proclaim is the gold standard of evidence. You rely on some of the same cues, some of the same shifty cultural notions we all do, but draw a different conclusion, weighting chromosomes at 100%, and nothing else matters. There is no dictionary in the world that defines "he" as "having xy chromosomes".