4 ms·
> Is this a largely solved problem around the issue, or a solved problem in and around the community? That a community has solved a problem is no different tha
by king_jester 12y ago
> Is this a largely solved problem around the issue, or a solved problem in and around the community?
That a community has solved a problem is no different than the problem being solved (unless of course you don't believe in the validity of trans people). Chelsea Manning has clearly stated that she is a woman and should be referred to as a woman.
> I ask because I'm torn between wanting to respect the individual, but also as a computer scientist feeling somewhat offended that someone's later choice of how they want to refer to themselves caused altered accounts of historical information, which to my eyes is more confusing (and possibly less accurate, if that confusion isn't addressed promptly and often).
If you say you are feeling torn, then you are not wanting to respect this person at all, so you really aren't feeling torn. Bottom line, Chelsea Manning is a woman and should be referred to as such. You say you are offended, but what you are really saying is that you feel that you know her gender better than she does. You don't. Your discomfort with trans folks is your own issue and to misgender someone is hugely disrespectful.
> I'm not really sure how to square that with myself, but I think I lean towards preserving the data integrity of the public record. If someone referred to themselves in a specific way and identified themselves a specific way in the past, I think that's how they should be referred to when discussing that point in time.
There is a difference between talking about past events and continuing to insist on misgendering someone in the present.
- thanatropism 12y agoIsn't this what "née" is for?
- lilsunnybee 12y agoOr the much more common singular they. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they#Usage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they#Usage
- waterhouse 12y ago"née" isn't a pronoun; it's used to identify someone's birth name as distinct from her current name, as in "Hillary Clinton, née Rodham". A French-to-English dictionary says it literally means "born". (And when conjugated with a male noun, in French it would be "né".)
- lilsunnybee 12y agoThank you for this explanation! I was not aware.
- kbenson 12y agoYou are projecting. Please re-read my original post, and followup. To assume I'm biased without at least asking some questions first to clarify my intent is disingenuous, unfair, and unappreciated. > That a community has solved a problem is no different than the problem being solved (unless of course you don't believe in the validity of trans people). I don't believe this is true. If a community solves a problem of how the public at large should act, but the public does not accept or follow that solution, the problem is not solved. I was simply asking what type of adoption the solution I was presented had seen. If it's seeing widespread adoption, then this discussion has little meaning (beyond discussing technical merits of different approaches), because I don't think anything would change. I'm fine with that, besides thinking that history gets a bit more confusing. > If you say you are feeling torn, then you are not wanting to respect this person at No, I'm trying to weigh my respect for the individual and their desires against societies desires and needs, as well as what we may perceive as best for society (even if it's not something they value at the time). > Chelsea Manning is a woman and should be referred to as such. That's fine, I never stated she shouldn't be. I'm simply torn on what I think should be the best way to refer to her in the past tense, for the same reason I refer to my sic year old self as a boy, and not as a man. I'm a man now, I was a boy then. I am open to arguments to sway me though. I'm not pushing an agenda, just trying to discuss something that I encountered. > Your discomfort with trans folks This is the projection I was referring to. I thought I was pretty clear that I was uncomfortable with the historical record changing on someone's future decision. That this decision is common to transgender people is irrelevant to be points. If you want to argue that gender and name are important enough to warrant the changes, that's fine. If you can't make the argument without referring to transgender people, that may be a sign the argument needs refinement, or may have some baked in assumptions that don't hold. For example, I personally hold name and gender to be of equal importance. Maybe that's not the case for you, or any number of others. That may be a bad assumption on either of our parts. > There is a difference between talking about past events and continuing to insist on misgendering someone in the present. And where was I saying we should misgender them in the present? I don't think it's misgendering someone to refer to them as "he" when referring to them at some point when they referred to themselves with that pronoun, and as "she" in the present when that's how they refer to themselves. But maybe my thoughts in that are tied to some assumptions that need to be shaken. Like I said, I'm open to discussion, but please keep the attacks to yourself, at least until you've given me the benefit of a doubt.
- sp332 12y agoYour accusations are a little harsh, king_jester. kbenson just got some new information and is probing to find out how trustworthy it is.