NationStates

The New California Republic wrote:

Farnhamia wrote:Carbonated beverages are carbonated by carbon dioxide, not sodium. Wiki sayeth ...

Soda water in the UK has sodium chloride, i.e. salt, in it.

That would make it club soda, which is carbonated mineral water. Regardless, it isn't the salt that makes it fizzy.

But we digress.

Farnhamia wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:Soda water in the UK has sodium chloride, i.e. salt, in it.

That would make it club soda, which is carbonated mineral water.

Here we just call it soda water. Soda water without salt is just called sparkling water.

Farnhamia wrote:Regardless, it isn't the salt that makes it fizzy.

Indeed it is not.

Farnhamia wrote:But we digress.

Yes.

Grenartia wrote:But we're getting distracted. Sex and gender are not the same.

Has that been equated yet again?

True Refuge wrote:I've only seen xe/xyr used in place of they/their when the user wants to emphasize that they are not assuming anything about the person they're referring to.

The most recent example I've seen that encapsulates this was in Becky Chambers' science fiction novel The Long Way to a Small, Angry Planet, in which it's used in reference to members of other species so as to not make presumptions about others' ideas of gender systems and biology where "they" isn't sufficiently neutral.

I think the concept translates pretty well to when it's just humans. It's a politer form of gender-neutral language that isn't needed because there aren't many people who find "they" insufficient.

I know this has nothing to do with the current linguistical firestorm, but The Long Way to a Small, Angry Planet is a really good book, you guys.
Also trans and NB people are valid. Sex =/= gender. I thought this was obvious, but "Science-Man" over here seems to not get it.

Serrus wrote:

True Refuge wrote:I've only seen xe/xyr used in place of they/their when the user wants to emphasize that they are not assuming anything about the person they're referring to.

The most recent example I've seen that encapsulates this was in Becky Chambers' science fiction novel The Long Way to a Small, Angry Planet, in which it's used in reference to members of other species so as to not make presumptions about others' ideas of gender systems and biology where "they" isn't sufficiently neutral.

I think the concept translates pretty well to when it's just humans. It's a politer form of gender-neutral language that isn't needed because there aren't many people who find "they" insufficient.

I know this has nothing to do with the current linguistical firestorm, but The Long Way to a Small, Angry Planet is a really good book, you guys.
Also trans and NB people are valid. Sex =/= gender. I thought this was obvious, but "Science-Man" over here seems to not get it.

It’s always confusing to me, for some reason, the emphasis some put on the gender denial deal. And by that I mean that someone identifies as the gender of their expression and the gender they feel comfortable with and there’s nothing wrong with that. Why deny them that? I don’t get it. Sometimes a biological man identifies as a transgender woman. Sometimes a person doesn’t identify with the binary. Sometimes that identification is fluid. And I particularly don’t see why that’s wrong.

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:

Serrus wrote:I know this has nothing to do with the current linguistical firestorm, but The Long Way to a Small, Angry Planet is a really good book, you guys.
Also trans and NB people are valid. Sex =/= gender. I thought this was obvious, but "Science-Man" over here seems to not get it.

It’s always confusing to me, for some reason, the emphasis some put on the gender denial deal. And by that I mean that someone identifies as the gender of their expression and the gender they feel comfortable with and there’s nothing wrong with that. Why deny them that? I don’t get it. Sometimes a biological man identifies as a transgender woman. Sometimes a person doesn’t identify with the binary. Sometimes that identification is fluid. And I particularly don’t see why that’s wrong.

People express more reactionary views when they're afraid, this is somewhat established in psychology. I'm unsure to which extent this occurs in the minds of transphobes, but sometimes, it's fear that they're coming after them. Other times, as a former transphobe, I can say that it's genuinely metaphysical skepticism coupled with privilege. The latter is actually more sinister, because often they can be exposed to trans people for years and never change their views. Hell, it took me realizing I was trans to convince myself once and for all that those views were wrong. It takes a great deal of intellectual humility to be wrong about something like this, and most people simply aren't willing to question the manufactured ideology present throughout society.

The New California Republic wrote:

Grenartia wrote:But we're getting distracted. Sex and gender are not the same.

Has that been equated yet again?

I believe that was the point of this entire tangent, was it not?

Serrus wrote:

True Refuge wrote:I've only seen xe/xyr used in place of they/their when the user wants to emphasize that they are not assuming anything about the person they're referring to.

The most recent example I've seen that encapsulates this was in Becky Chambers' science fiction novel The Long Way to a Small, Angry Planet, in which it's used in reference to members of other species so as to not make presumptions about others' ideas of gender systems and biology where "they" isn't sufficiently neutral.

I think the concept translates pretty well to when it's just humans. It's a politer form of gender-neutral language that isn't needed because there aren't many people who find "they" insufficient.

I know this has nothing to do with the current linguistical firestorm, but The Long Way to a Small, Angry Planet is a really good book, you guys.
Also trans and NB people are valid. Sex =/= gender. I thought this was obvious, but "Science-Man" over here seems to not get it.

Its always fun for the actual scientists when the science understander logs on.

CivitasDei wrote:

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:
It’s always confusing to me, for some reason, the emphasis some put on the gender denial deal. And by that I mean that someone identifies as the gender of their expression and the gender they feel comfortable with and there’s nothing wrong with that. Why deny them that? I don’t get it. Sometimes a biological man identifies as a transgender woman. Sometimes a person doesn’t identify with the binary. Sometimes that identification is fluid. And I particularly don’t see why that’s wrong.

People express more reactionary views when they're afraid, this is somewhat established in psychology. I'm unsure to which extent this occurs in the minds of transphobes, but sometimes, it's fear that they're coming after them. Other times, as a former transphobe, I can say that it's genuinely metaphysical skepticism coupled with privilege. The latter is actually more sinister, because often they can be exposed to trans people for years and never change their views. Hell, it took me realizing I was trans to convince myself once and for all that those views were wrong. It takes a great deal of intellectual humility to be wrong about something like this, and most people simply aren't willing to question the manufactured ideology present throughout society.

Honestly, yeah, I've had a similar experience.

Proctopeo wrote:

Saciu wrote:As Proctopeo said, that's the point. Are pavement and sidewalk not the same?

I think pavement counts as a hypernym and a slang term for "sidewalk".
So, yes and no.

Really? How is pavement in anyway slang? And what can be considered pavement that can't be considered sidewalk?
EDIT: Yeah, I'll disagree with you on that. as I can't see how roads etc can be considered pavement. BUT, as many people said, we're digressing.

Grenartia wrote:Honestly, yeah, I've had a similar experience.

I'm glad to hear I'm not the only one! For a long time, it was a source of shame for me.

CivitasDei wrote:

Grenartia wrote:Honestly, yeah, I've had a similar experience.

I'm glad to hear I'm not the only one! For a long time, it was a source of shame for me.

I understand that, but I take comfort in having changed for the better.

Grenartia wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:Has that been equated yet again?

I believe that was the point of this entire tangent, was it not?

Sorry I was away for a while.

Cekoviu wrote:

West Leas Oros 2 wrote:I mean, a lot of people will claim that most of psychology is genetic, the whole "nature/nurture" thing and all that, but I'd say otherwise. Either way, it's clear scientifically that sex and gender are two different things, hence why they are different words.

That's not a very good argument. "Soda" and "pop" are two different words, but that doesn't mean they're different things.

Yes they are. Call it "soda" in my beautiful Minnesota and we'll break your legs dont'cha know.

West Leas Oros 2 wrote:

Cekoviu wrote:That's not a very good argument. "Soda" and "pop" are two different words, but that doesn't mean they're different things.

Yes they are. Call it "soda" in my beautiful Minnesota and we'll break your legs dont'cha know.

What are we, in a hockey arena?

Cekoviu wrote:

West Leas Oros 2 wrote:Yes they are. Call it "soda" in my beautiful Minnesota and we'll break your legs dont'cha know.

What are we, in a hockey arena?

The mods are the IIHF, don't you know?

West Leas Oros 2 wrote:

Cekoviu wrote:That's not a very good argument. "Soda" and "pop" are two different words, but that doesn't mean they're different things.

Yes they are. Call it "soda" in my beautiful Minnesota and we'll break your legs dont'cha know.

Agreed. You'll call it "Coke" in the sweet state of Texas or we'll stop being sweet.

Evil Dictators Happyland wrote:

West Leas Oros 2 wrote:Yes they are. Call it "soda" in my beautiful Minnesota and we'll break your legs dont'cha know.

Agreed. You'll call it "Coke" in the sweet state of Texas or we'll stop being sweet.

What if I order a pepsi?

What are these juvenile words? Across the pond, in the South of England, we call it carbonated beverages (or fizzy drinks, especially younger people)

Saciu wrote:What are these juvenile words? Across the pond, in the South of England, we call it carbonated beverages (or fizzy drinks, especially younger people)

US idioms that often confuse those who are not used to them. I know I was when I first moved here. Pop, soda, or how many in the south still refer to any carbonated drink as Coke. But you get used to it and know when to switch idioms to be understood.

Nobody's posted in almost a day *gasp*, so I suggest a topic of discussion (which sparked a week-long feud last time someone brought it up):
What do you guys think of the dysphoria debate? Not which side you take, whether you believe you have to have dysphoria or not, but what you think about the debate itself. Whether it's a fun argument that helps educate people about trans issues, or whether it's a silly dispute that serves only to divide and enrage the trans community.

Saciu wrote:Nobody's posted in almost a day *gasp*, so I suggest a topic of discussion (which sparked a week-long feud last time someone brought it up):
What do you guys think of the dysphoria debate? Not which side you take, whether you believe you have to have dysphoria or not, but what you think about the debate itself. Whether it's a fun argument that helps educate people about trans issues, or whether it's a silly dispute that serves only to divide and enrage the trans community.

On one side, the issue of what dysphoria is, it’s mechanisms, diagnosis and how to best treat it in all manifestations is a necessary part of the discussion. It allows us to better understand transgender issues and how to best help transgender people. On the other side, I don’t think it’s the sole trait that must be present for society to validate transgender individuals and their identity. It’s complicated in that it divides the transgender community as well as it divides the medical approaches to diagnosis and treatments and access to resources, which trans people need. I can’t classify it as funny, as it is a necessary part of the discussion. It’s just, imo, part and parcel of the dialogue, just not the only defining factor.

Saciu wrote:Nobody's posted in almost a day *gasp*, so I suggest a topic of discussion (which sparked a week-long feud last time someone brought it up):

I was hoping the soda derailment would fix itself.

What do you guys think of the dysphoria debate? Not which side you take, whether you believe you have to have dysphoria or not, but what you think about the debate itself. Whether it's a fun argument that helps educate people about trans issues, or whether it's a silly dispute that serves only to divide and enrage the trans community.

I understand why the debate exists, but I really hate that it does exist.

Saciu wrote:Nobody's posted in almost a day *gasp*, so I suggest a topic of discussion (which sparked a week-long feud last time someone brought it up):
What do you guys think of the dysphoria debate? Not which side you take, whether you believe you have to have dysphoria or not, but what you think about the debate itself. Whether it's a fun argument that helps educate people about trans issues, or whether it's a silly dispute that serves only to divide and enrage the trans community.

I think, as with all issues of metaphysics, it's an issue of semantics.

"hmm as Mr.terrorist i have THE ULTIMATE PLAN! I pretend to be a woman and stuff an Mg-34, 2 c4s, a minuteman lieutenant 300 ballistic missile, the entire nation of Kenya, and the most devious of all, a WATER BOTTLE INTO MY BOOBS! MWAHAHHAHAHHHA" but really though TSA is a little overboard

note: by "pretend to be a woman" I don't mean that to trans people as I myself am one but for the specific character

West Leas Oros 2 wrote:

Evil Dictators Happyland wrote:Agreed. You'll call it "Coke" in the sweet state of Texas or we'll stop being sweet.

What if I order a pepsi?

That is but one type of Coke.

Fahran wrote:

West Leas Oros 2 wrote:What if I order a pepsi?

That is but one type of Coke.

Same way that Great Value bandages are a type of Band-Aid, or that Bing is a type of Google.

Grenartia wrote:I understand why the debate exists, but I really hate that it does exist.

I believe it's a necessary debate if we intend to set up transitioning as a bonafide medical treatment. I don't think euphoria alone provides a viable justification for the vast majority of insurance plans, least of all in public healthcare systems. Dysphoria, on the other hand, provides a compelling argument for medical necessity.