Should a 'he' be called a 'she' if they still have a penis?

Me and all of my friends had uni-sex bathrooms before it was cool.

...At home.

 

Coming back to this .. we don't do the 'sir' and 'ma'am' thing in this country. At least no one over the age of 16 and not working in a store does. We only use names (if we have them), or endearments. Endearments as in strangers will call people the equivalent of 'love' or 'dear'. Subsequently, there would rarely be a situation wherein a gendered address is required. I would, however, refer to the person in question as their actual gender when discussing them with other parties. Eg, calling Bruce Jenner "he" in conversations.

 

Then you must live in a very rude section of the country, because I not only use Sir and Ma'am with my customers, I also have it used with and around me when I am the customer, even over the phone as noted before. Now I will use, sweetie, and dear and such with my regulars, and have such used with me by workers at businesses I am a regular at. Oh, I do tend to use Milady a lot with my female customers. They seem to really like that. As to referencing people in the third person, I use their preference, because I really don't know, nor could you know, exactly what their genetic code is saying. As I have oft noted, they could well be a chimera with both an XX set and a XY set. Even the **** with the bad attitude who strikes every radar I have as male, I refer to as she, because I am not petty enough to undermine her like that.

 

what do you mean by 'section of the country'? do you think all other countries are just sections of America?

PS: I'm not American

 

Ah well, my bad. It's not like I have any other indication of your current location. I simply played the odds and got it wrong. Then allow me to reiterate: you must live in a rather rude country or section of your country if people in general are not using "sir" and " ma'am" anymore, because it is still quite common in the various places I visit. And being a truck driver, I get to see many places in America, and being part of the international board of a international fan organization, I interact with people from around the world.

 

It is still used here, but mainly by very young workers, in service type jobs. Mature women in such jobs are more likely to call you 'pet/dear/love' regardless of gender, and mature men in service jobs more likely to call you 'love' or 'buddy/mate', depending on gender. Those in the middle .. say 25 to 60, will probably not address you personally at all, just transact business with a friendly smile and 'thank you'.

Has nothing to do with rudeness, it's just not our current culture to use those terms. It comes over as a bit obsequious, in this country.

 

You can never go wrong with 'Hey, you!'

 

I don't think we should be doing anything to encourage people to get their dick chopped off.
Telling them we're not going to call him a "she" until he gets his dick cut off might encourage them to do exactly that.

So as much as I want to vote no, I'm going to have to vote yes.

Either call him a she or don't call him a she, but don't make it contingent on whether he has an elective surgery done on his genitals.

 

Doesn't matter what mutilations these mentally ill fetishists inflict on themselves, they don't become female, even the doctors performing the surgeries clearly tell them that, so no, they shouldn't be referred to as females at all. They're eunuchs, not 'transgenders'.

 

The thing is, if that is the level they need to go to aleviate their GID, then holding a pronoun or not won't make a difference. Callling a FtM "he" pre op won't change whether or not they get the surgery (assuming they need to go that far), nor will withholding it accelerate how soon they get the surgery.

 

What one is medically, is quite different from what one is socially. Medically a person with AIS (born with a vagina but has a XY pair) is not the same as a cis male nor a cis female. Yet they are treated the same as a female. Ultimately, how we treat people, at least on a casual non sexual relationship basis, is not by what is between the legs, which we don't get to see, not by the genetic code, also not getting to see. So go by what they claim. They know their body better than you or I do.

 

"It" should be referred to by whatever it wants if only out of compassion, which it would seem is in short order in this situation.

 

Semantics, and certainly not an example of the vast majority of those wanting to be sexually mutilated. Most studies involving genital birth defects and like show that they grow up preferring the sex they were raised as around 90% of the time; at least the studies conducted when research wasn't designed to fit PC fashion.

 

That may only be because the doctors and parents chose the gender that was most appropriate to raise the particular child as in the first place, considering the unique individual circumstances.
I'm guessing for conditions were the genetically male child was born without a penis and they chose to carve out a vagina and raise him as a female, that the statistics for these individuals identifying with the gender they were raised as do not look so good. (This used to happen a lot more 40 years ago but fortunately today is almost never done)

 

How is it 'compassionate' to enable a highly dysfunctional mental illness?

If someone believes that their personal delusions are their personal reality, do you treat that person as though you agree? Or do you show greater compassion by not adding the weight of 'confirmation' to their burden? It's never in the best interests of those suffering delusions to pander to his/her delusions. We pander to the patient, not the symptoms.

And further, all social address is a negotiation. We are not the deciders of how the rest of the world views us. Anyone who imagines that they are, and that the world ought to kowtow to their dictates, is a flaming narcissist.

 

I hope you are not referring to studies from the likes of John Money and his ilk. They were refuted completely by his self described success of David Reimer, who never identified with his raised gender of female. Many subjects of the time were bullied into publicly claiming who the doctors said they were, but had problems because of the forced transitions. Basically it was an ideal object lesson on not trying to force a person to go against who they are, cis or trans.

As to semantics, if so, it is a difference of importance. If the person looks female you address them as such. Even then, there are plenty of people who while identifying as their birth sex, end up looking like the opposite, or the opposite trying to be the claimed. Masculine looking women and feminine looking men. Are you telling me that you are going to insist on calling a person by what you perceive them as instead of what they claim, short of visual confirmation?

 

Do you still believe that?

 

I made the most recent thread on California passing the pronouns law for nursing homes (http://politicalforum.com/index.php...of-the-constitution-if-this-can-happen.516060) and I was trying to find out if there was a precedent for this. After some digging, I found the precedent of this New York law. Absurd! How the hell do they even enforce these ridiculous laws? Isn't it he said she said? Unless a police officer overhears you calling someone by a pronoun which they don't want you to use, I don't see how it would work.

 

Yes a "he" should be called a "she" if they want to be called that. I'm not a mean bastard. However, it shouldn't be against the law to choose not to do it, like in New York where businesses are forced into it and now also California in the nursing homes. There is that little thing called the 1st Amendment which the rest of the western world envies, including my country Australia where we don't have this right.

 

No he should be called a " patient ".

 

Whilst I realise you're jesting (partly), this is unfortunately the problem.

Those who rush to enable the delusions have lost sight of the patient. The unseemly haste driven by the need to virtue signal, and the terror of being seen to be un-hip. In all that vanity, the patient comes dead last.

 

I'm not convinced that by NOT using their desired pronoun that it will make any difference to them.

 

I'm not so sure. The only interaction that I ever had with transgender people who I infact know to be transgender is on the internet.

One on this very board has told me that it's bigotry for a man to prefer not to have a relationship with a trans woman.

So if in your standard of whether a woman is a woman or not depends on the presence or lack thereof of male genitalia you're supposed to ignore that and plow some dude in the rear because they took some hormones.

This is from a trans person. Personally I have no issue with trans people. I'll address them as the way they present I don't have any problem with that. However I do take consideration when they're telling me how to think.

I take that back I did buy a tool box at Home Depot and a nice young lady was working the cashier. She obviously was trans.

 

I have had much trouble understanding your post.
I don't see your point or understand what you are trying to say.

Very sorry...

 

What I'm trying to say is sometimes I hear on the internet not in real life that trans people think that it's bigotry when people of the gender they prefer aren't attracted to them because of the transgender status.

Me personally I just don't know any trans folks. My interaction with them is limited to trip to Home Depot.