It's a common misconception about asexuals, and the label chosen that is sticking doesn't help. Of course it also doesn't help that we have people who can't seem to grasp the difference between the orientations and the gender identities as we've see here. Doing education in the poly and BDSM communities as I do I have a lot of interaction with the various orientations and identities, and try to help keep the labels straight. Even if a person doesn't agree with them, at least they can not look foolish when talking about them.
Thank you for trying to explain this, but it is confusing. I get there is a difference between orientation and gender identity, however, to my mind, gender identity is what you show the world, whereas orientation only reveals itself in interacting with that individual. There are just too many labels around, even though the cues have been around for a long time.
I can think of only two biological reasons for this; old age, or low testosterone. The latter can be addressed.
It's surprising to some how much the former can be addressed and overcome as well, but it's less medical and more psychological. Mind you that is about the drive and not necessarily the body's ability to "keep up". But I wanted to make a strong point on the difference between drive and attraction, and how they are not the same nor dependent upon each other. Most people have both, and it makes it harder for them to comprehend them as separate things. I get it. Even as a supporter, I think that the proliferation of all the new labels is overwhelming. But I also see the reasoning. As we get freer to express ourselves without being required to fall into lock step with the available labels, we end up with nuances that doesn't quite fit one or the other. Take me for example. I am attracted to women. Something that I discovered, and even 20 years ago would never have guessed about myself, is that male/female didn't matter. Now if you look strictly at the sex of people I am attracted to, then I am bisexual. But male men, or even female men never invoke that in me. So on the gender side of things I am straight. So what fits best? I've not seen a label out there other than heteroflexable that comes close. And I am not about to make one up. As you said, there is too much out there causing confusion.
I get it. I identify as heterosexual, but I am attracted to trans women. It seems simple to me how to treat them, as a lady of course. BTW, what's the difference between bisexual and pansexual?
"but "they"? That's just going a bit too far for me. "They" implies there is more than one, so are you a group?" yep, agree, unless one has multiple personality disorder I suppose
I don't think so, if one said "they are playing in the backyard", everyone would assume more than one person was playing in the backyard words can change, I remember old people being confused by the "that's hot" or "that's cool" or "killer" when younger - but I see now why they had a hard time with it from the 80's from the 40's
The use of sex or gender as the basis of labeling. Pansexual usually means attracted to any gender, whereas bisexual is about the biological sex. The later has, to some, the implication of not having attraction to transgenders of either type, hence the use of pan to say their attractions are not so limited.
You are expecting too much, of a single word. I mean, sure, for those particular occasions, when one wants the listener to know as much of the specific, intimate details about their erogenous underpinnings as possible, I have no objections to your having that word, to use. But this is no justification for expecting others to know that word, & to make sure they use it, in regard to all those to whom it would correctly apply. For the basic meaning, when talking about sexuality, all that would be required in your case, based on what you say, here, would be the word "bisexual." It does not matter that you are not attracted to all members of either sex: nor are many heterosexuals, or homosexuals. But if you have romantic relations with some of both sexes, that would be, typically, the extent of the information, expected by the listener. Take, for example, the terms, sexually (or, for that matter, psychologically) "dominant" or "submissive." The words are there, to use, in the appropriate circumstances; but it would be ludicrous for those who "identify" as either of those things, to expect all others to acknowledge this, in referring to them. We could, of course, take this much farther, to the specific aspects of the S&M scene, to which one was attracted. But none of that, should be required, in standard practice, just to refer to someone.
This all puts me in mind of a trend I had noticed, in the auto industry, some years ago. Certain bits of information, such as size of the engine, in cubic centimeters, or liters, have long been included in the name of a vehicle, written on the back of the trunk, or on the rear quarter panel, for instance. Next, makers started differentiating the base models, from those with various other upgrades, so we would see, added to the name, an "LX," for example, or a "DX." But more & more information, continued creeping into vehicle names. Merely having a V-8, or a Slant-6 engine, warranted touting. Having anti-lock brakes, or all-wheel drive (ABS/AWD) were advertised, in the actual name of the car, truck, or Sports Utility Vehicle (SUV). Finally, the dam broke, and manufacturers all seemed to want to add extra description to their cars' names, so started noting info about their air bags, suspensions, steering systems, chrome wheels, even their sound systems-- at one point, I think I saw one mention that it had a full-sized spare tire-- all spelled out, on the back of the vehicle. It got so, if a car had heated seats, and a passenger side, visor vanity mirror, I expected to see those features, included on the outside of the automobile, as part of its name. But, as is common in human trends, it seems to have been recognized, to have gotten out of hand, and so has been pruned back; or at least I am not always noticing it, anymore-- unless it is only that I became accustomed to it? Perhaps a combination of those two. Likewise-- unless there is a dramatic physiological shift, currently underway, in the human population (which, with all our pollutants, is not beyond the realm of possibility)-- this accessorizing of peoples' pronouns, to include all manner of unnecessary specificity, I predict will subside, leaving the language (as spoken in the main), incorporating just a remnant of the terminology.
Exactly. "They" is used sometimes when gender is unknown. If the person is standing right in front of you and obviously has a gender, guess what, no mystery. Now you just sound like you don't understand the English language when you call that person a "they". And I still fail to see the purpose for this change of language to begin with. There is no such thing as non-binary. Everyone has a gender. EVERYONE. You're not going to get rid of gender stereotypes by pretending you can get rid of your gender. Nobody except others trying to do the same and those tripping over themselves to virtue signal are ever going to buy what you're selling.
What is the gender of an XY chromosome pair person born with a vagina? And yes this a something that actually happens.
I suppose in those extremely rare exceptions, you would call them a hermaphrodite. If you're born with both genders, I suppose you get to choose which you want to be. But that's not the case for 99.99% of the folks out there.
How do you know? Until a medical situation comes up making it necessary to look at one's DNA, how is such a "woman" going to ever find out that she had an XY pair? Or that maybe they are a chimera with both an XX set and an XY set? We typically only test from one location not multiple. How many such people are out there unknown because nothing comes up to make it necessary to look at DNA, either in one or multiple spots? For the record, such a person in my example would not be a hermaphrodite. True hermaphroditism means they have both testicular and ovarian tissue, not necessarily fully formed into organs. An AIS person rarely has both. To my knowledge a stereotypical hermaphrodite, one with both penis and vagina, has never been born.
In cases like that, which is going to be pretty much all of them, you would use external characteristics. Nobody cares what your DNA is. I certainly don't.
I bet the people affected would care. Afterall, it's their life. But sure, most who are not affected don't care.
While not siding with those, expecting you to refer to your grandchild as a "they," I find it curious that you would find the word, "it," preferable. It would seem to me that a child's hearing itself referred to as an inanimate object, might be worse, than having it/them be referred to, as a plural. There is, after all, the 3rd person, royal precedent-- "we are not amused."
First things, first: no one is trying to refer to you as a group, are they, Adfundum? Or maybe, as Adfundia? Next thing, is to concede that there is no solution, to your granddaughter situation, which is perfect: that is, one allowing you to do exactly as you wish, which doesn't cause problems for you, from the other end. So, while this might seem obvious, I just wanted to point out the next best solution (other than telling your daughter in law, to lump it). Pronouns, while time-saving, are not absolutely necessary; you could simply just always refer to the girl in question: 1) by name; or 2) through a description; for example, as -- "your daughter" -- "my granddaughter" -- "the little girl, who'd just left the room," or, "...whom we are discussing," et cetera. Granted, this is more trouble for you, but it does spare you from compromising your sense of what is appropriate English usage. Also, there is the possibility that your doing this, could become more annoying to your daughter-in-law, than even hearing the pronouns "her," or "she," potentially leading to her withdrawing, her original request.
You're making an assumption about my suggestion of using it as a personal pronoun. I was being a bit sarcastic--not suggesting anyone actually use it. I mentioned it to point out the irony of wanting to change certain usages on one hand, but not being willing to change them on the other hand. The only suggestion here is that we think critically about the issue. Therefore, my question about why it is not ok. First part--If someone is referring to me in the first person but using they, it can be offensive to me in the same way someone might take offense at not being referred to as they. I have my rights. However, the point of my quoted comments was to point out the lack of clarity caused by using they, Mary, and a room full of people in the same sentence. Did they all have that realization about the keys or just Mary? Second, while I appreciate the suggestions, I'm going to continue to be a jerk. I see myself as a god, and gods don't need gender because they can create anything they want. I'm offended by humans using gendered pronouns when referring to me. They can refer to me as the deity, my deity, or just deity. Is my sarcasm making a point? As for my DIL, I think she's already come to terms with the idea that I'm not going to play the game. Even her daughter won't play. And besides, telling an old English teacher to change his/her usage to satisfy someone else's personal preferences is not likely to work well. Just for fun--please don't take me serious--replace she with they in this line. What be-verb follows they? And in my hour of darkness she is standing right in front of me Speaking words of wisdom Let it be
They and them I try to use more habitually now. That is as far as I am going. I am not learning or caring if someone prefers Xi or Ze or whatever
