Chelsea Manning name row: Wikipedia editors banned from trans pages - Polidicks

[QUOTE=RosettaStoned;42670567]It reminds me of when a kid at school would only allow you to address him by a nickname he made up, despite everyone already knowing him perfectly well by his regular name.[/QUOTE] Thats an awful comparison.

[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;42676054]If the definition is causing unnecessary harm to a persecuted minority then the definition should be changed and if youre really going to argue "the dictionary says this so im going to call you a he even though it insults you" then yeah that makes you an asshole[/QUOTE] So if a minority feels that a common definition is offensive, then the definition as used by the majority must change immediately? Have you really thought the implications of this idea through? I know Christians who hate Catholicism so much that any definition of 'Christian' that includes Catholics in it is offensive to them. Should the definition of Christian change because a minority is offended? Which minority do we conform to? Who makes this decision? How do we make other people follow the new meaning? Call me crazy but I think there comes a time when you can say 'sorry, but the common definition of these words is what it is, perhaps we can use alternate terminology to properly convey your position'. A definition is just a consensus, a common meaning determined by the majority. If you're redefining it every time a minority thinks it should be redefined then the very concept of a definition (ie most common usage) goes out the window.

[QUOTE=sgman91;42675780]I already showed that they do. If you continue looking up the words 'male'/'man' you will see that they refer solely to a physical trait and not a gender identification. Please read the argument at hand before posting. Not by any officially recognized definition of the word woman.[/QUOTE] Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive, and also by their nature simplify things [I]a lot.[/I] If looking up something in the dictionary was all you needed to know about a topic, there'd be no need for any kind of education. [QUOTE=sgman91;42675780]Animals are very clearly called 'he' or 'she' based on their physical sex. It is logical to carry this to humans as well.[/QUOTE] Animals don't have a gender identity that they can communicate clearly to us, nor do they have language that they participate in with us. Animals are also frequently referred to as "it", especially in scientific contexts, which is not something that is applied to humans. [QUOTE=sgman91;42675780]If the word 'he' refers solely to physical sex than a man who identifies as a woman fits all the qualities associated with being a male.[/QUOTE] But it [I]doesn't[/I] refer solely to physical sex for all practical purposes. To demonstrate, let's meet Postman Pat: [t]http://lorraineonline.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/250px-Postman-Pat.jpg[/t] Postman Pat is a really happy man, but is also a puppet, and thus doesn't have genitals, chromosomes etc. of any kind. If "man" and "he" refered solely to the male physical sex, then they would never be used in reference to Postman Pat, because Postman Pat doesn't even have a physical sex, let alone a male one. Nevertheless, when people discuss Postman Pat, they call him a "man" and refer to him using the pronoun "he". This is because in practical human terms, "man" and "he" are used in reference to gender, not sex, and Postman Pat's character is of the male gender. "Man" and "he" (and similarly "woman" and "she") have a hell of a lot more meaning associated with them than physical sex, this is undeniable, and in most cases physical sex isn't even that high up the list. When someone is asked to picture a man in a parking lot or a male friend, that person's penis/testicles/chromosomes/etc are unlikely to be at the forefront of their mind. Instead they will be picturing the sort of person they are, how they like to dress etc; in essence, their identity. A person's gender is therefore a hell of a lot more relevant to the everyday use of words than what form of reproductive organs they have. By using words like "man" and "he" to describe a person of the female gender, you're applying all kinds of related meaning (i.e. meaning that isn't in regards to physical sex) to describing that person that doesn't fit them, and in fact is opposite to who they actually are, which is in effect telling them that they are not who they know they are. If someone isn't who they know they are, they don't exist, and telling people they don't exist is pretty much denying them basic respect as human beings. [QUOTE=sgman91;42675780]We already have a word to describe someone who doesn't fit the social qualities of being a man, namely: transsexual, gay, bisexual, etc.[/QUOTE] Pretty sure a gay guy is a man. [QUOTE=sgman91;42675780]You define a word differently than any major, official, dictionary and then call people arsholes for disagreeing with your definition.[/QUOTE] I say people are being arseholes when they think that making themselves feel smart by appealing to dictionary definitions is more important than giving other people basic respect as human beings, yes. [editline]28th October 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;42675780]A person who is sexually a man, but mentally a woman is different than a person who is sexually a woman and mentally a woman.[/QUOTE] Yeah, and in cases where the differences are relevant (which they aren't most of the time, so there's no point in making that distinction in a lot of cases), we have terms that we can use to differentiate: transwoman and ciswoman. Simple. [QUOTE=sgman91;42675780]It is much more clear to call the first a transsexual man and the second a woman then call both a woman.[/QUOTE] So in your mind, calling this person a man: [t]http://img.thesun.co.uk/aidemitlum/archive/01394/SNF2028A---682_1394113a.jpg[/t] and this person a woman: [t]http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/webdr01/2013/2/21/12/enhanced-buzz-25520-1361467407-5.jpg[/t] is clarity? Because IMO it's the opposite of clear.

[QUOTE=Tweevle;42676488]Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive, and also by their nature simplify things [I]a lot.[/I] If looking up something in the dictionary was all you needed to know about a topic, there'd be no need for any kind of education.[/QUOTE] The topic IS the definition of a word. So the only real marker we have for defining words is fairly relevant. [QUOTE]Animals don't have a gender identity that they can communicate clearly to us, nor do they have language that they participate in with us. Animals are also frequently referred to as "it", especially in scientific contexts, which is not something that is applied to humans.[/QUOTE] If 'he' only referred to gender then it shouldn't make sense to call a male dog a 'he.' Since when does the inability to communicate make gender irrelevant? [QUOTE]But it [I]doesn't[/I] refer solely to physical sex for all practical purposes. To demonstrate, let's meet Postman Pat: [t]http://lorraineonline.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/250px-Postman-Pat.jpg[/t] Postman Pat is a really happy man, but is also a puppet, and thus doesn't have genitals, chromosomes etc. of any kind. If "man" and "he" refered solely to the male physical sex, then they would never be used in reference to Postman Pat, because Postman Pat doesn't even have a physical sex, let alone a male one. Nevertheless, when people discuss Postman Pat, they call him a "man" and refer to him using the pronoun "he". This is because in practical human terms, "man" and "he" are used in reference to gender, not sex, and Postman Pat's character is of the male gender.[/QUOTE] How do you know that he doesn't identify as a woman? You are assuming that based on his physical appearance. [QUOTE]"Man" and "he" (and similarly "woman" and "she") have a hell of a lot more meaning associated with them than physical sex, this is undeniable, and in most cases physical sex isn't even that high up the list. When someone is asked to picture a man in a parking lot or a male friend, that person's penis/testicles/chromosomes/etc are unlikely to be at the forefront of their mind. Instead they will be picturing the sort of person they are, how they like to dress etc; in essence, their identity. A person's gender is therefore a hell of a lot more relevant to the everyday use of words than what form of reproductive organs they have.[/QUOTE] This is a completely subjective argument. I would say the physical traits of a person are very relevant when describing a person as man. For example: "I saw a man walking down the street yesterday." This makes absolutely no claim about gender identity and is very clearly understood to reference his physical attributes, solely. [QUOTE]By using words like "man" and "he" to describe a person of the female gender, you're applying all kinds of related meaning (i.e. meaning that isn't in regards to physical sex) to describing that person that doesn't fit them, and in fact is opposite to who they actually are, which is in effect telling them that they are not who they know they are. If someone isn't who they know they are, they don't exist, and telling people they don't exist is pretty much denying them basic respect as human beings.[/QUOTE] Calling someone 'he' is saying they physically look like a man. If they want to attribute all those other things then be my guest, but that isn't what was intended. [QUOTE]Pretty sure a gay guy is a man.[/QUOTE] Yes, he's a man, but he still doesn't fit the sociological expectations of a man in a similar way that a transsexual might not. Under your reasoning we also can't call a gay man a man because it's telling him he doesn't exist because he doesn't fit under the common conception of what a man is supposed to be. [QUOTE]I say people are being arseholes when they think that making themselves feel smart by appealing to dictionary definitions is more important than giving other people basic respect as human beings, yes.[/QUOTE] Nice emotional appeal. [QUOTE]Yeah, and in cases where the differences are relevant (which they aren't most of the time, so there's no point in making that distinction in a lot of cases), we have terms that we can use to differentiate: transwoman and ciswoman. Simple.[/QUOTE] No one uses those terms outside of gender studies and tumblr. Ask the average person aged 30+ and they won't have any idea what ciswoman means. Ironically, ciswoman isn't even in Webster's. [QUOTE]So in your mind, calling this person a man: [t]http://img.thesun.co.uk/aidemitlum/archive/01394/SNF2028A---682_1394113a.jpg[/t] and this person a woman: [t]http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/webdr01/2013/2/21/12/enhanced-buzz-25520-1361467407-5.jpg[/t] is clarity? Because IMO it's the opposite of clear.[/QUOTE] I'm not claiming my definition will ALWAYS be clear, but that it will be MORE clear. All descriptions of variable possibilities has confusion in the most extreme circumstances. Also, I would describe the first person as a trans man and the second as a trans woman.

Holy shit. And I thought I was autistic. What the fuck does it matter dude? How does someone saying "hey, I'm now known as Chelsea, call me a she and shit" impact your life in the slightest? Why the fuck is it causing you so much obvious pain?

[QUOTE=hexpunK;42676667]Holy shit. And I thought I was autistic. What the fuck does it matter dude? How does someone saying "hey, I'm now known as Chelsea, call me a she and shit" impact your life in the slightest? Why the fuck is it causing you so much obvious pain?[/QUOTE] Wait, where did I say that Chelsea couldn't ask for people to say that?

[QUOTE=sgman91;42676698]Wait, where did I say that Chelsea couldn't ask for people to say that?[/QUOTE] You are literally arguing that "he" should be used because of her physical state. Your walls of text are fucking dull and repetitive so if you've changed that at any point, I'm wrong. But you're still arguing over definitions, which change.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;42676715]You are literally arguing that "he" should be used because of her physical state. Your walls of text are fucking dull and repetitive so if you've changed that at any point, I'm wrong. But you're still arguing over definitions, which change.[/QUOTE] Me personally being against Chelsea's desire is nothing but a strawman. My argument as always been about the social implications of changing definitions of words unnecessarily. It would be like me defining your argument as, "All you want is to defend the sensibilities of everyone no matter the dire consequences to society." It would be a complete strawman and it wouldn't be true at all. Instead I've presented a position and tried to give logical argument in defense of it.

[QUOTE=sgman91;42676744]Me personally being against Chelsea's desire is nothing but a strawman. My argument as always been about the social implications of changing definitions of words unnecessarily.[/QUOTE] Its not an unneccesary change if society changes to not apply to it any more. Your argument is pretty awful for that reason alone.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;42676799]Its not an unneccesary change if society changes to not apply to it any more. Your argument is pretty awful for that reason alone.[/QUOTE] That change hasn't happened outside of gender studies programs. To call someone a bigot for using a commonly accepted definition that isn't at all negatively charged seems a bit like being the PC police. [editline]28th October 2013[/editline] You keep saying things with false assumptions. The average person would refer to a person who looked like a man, but identified as a woman as a man.

[QUOTE=sgman91;42676824]That change hasn't happened outside of gender studies programs. To call someone a bigot for using a commonly accepted definition that isn't at all negatively charged seems a bit like being the PC police. [editline]28th October 2013[/editline] You keep saying things with false assumptions. The average person would refer to a person who looked like a man, but identified as a woman as a man.[/QUOTE] probably because the average person is ignorant of or bigoted towards the concept of transgenderism??? and seriously like get off your fucking "status quo" platform because your arguments are shoddy

God damnit people... if you want to disagree with my position please do, but saying "your arguments are shoddy" with no specific reference to an argument is useless and nothing but a fallacy. [editline]28th October 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Arctic-Zone;42676896]probably because the average person is ignorant of or bigoted towards the concept of transgenderism???[/QUOTE] Again, you are defining a word in a way different than most people understand and then calling people bigots for disagreeing with you.

[QUOTE=sgman91;42676930]God damnit people... if you want to disagree with my position please do, but saying "your arguments are shoddy" with no specific reference to an argument is useless and nothing but a fallacy.[/QUOTE] you are literally arguing that conventions of language shouldn't change because they've been around for so long already also, the fact that you think third person pronouns refer to the sex of something means you have a fairly large misunderstanding of grammar and also social convention

[QUOTE=Arctic-Zone;42676960]you are literally arguing that conventions of language shouldn't change because they've been around for so long already[/QUOTE] Strawman, my argument was never based on tradition for the sake of tradition. [QUOTE]also, the fact that you think third person pronouns refer to the sex of something means you have a fairly large misunderstanding of grammar and also social convention[/QUOTE] Ad hominem, no relevant argument presented.

[QUOTE=sgman91;42676637]The topic IS the definition of a word. So the only real marker we have for defining words is fairly relevant.[/QUOTE] Not as relevant as how they're actually used practically and whether the definition of a word is useful in conveying meaning, which is at the end of the day what words are for. [QUOTE=sgman91;42676637]If 'he' only referred to gender then it shouldn't make sense to call a male dog a 'he.'[/QUOTE] It makes sense because we anthropomorphize animals and so assign gender to them in our minds. It's no accident that the times we use gendered pronouns are generally when we're empathising with them, e.g. pets, and we use impersonal terms like "it" when we aren't empathising with them, e.g. infestations. [QUOTE=sgman91;42676637]Since when does the inability to communicate make gender irrelevant?[/QUOTE] It means we can't be aware of what their gender is since they can't communicate it to us, so we make the assumption that it's congruent with their sex since gender usually matches sex. If we were to somehow find some method of determining an animal's gender identity without it telling us, then IMO it would make more sense to use pronouns that reflected its gender rather than sex. [QUOTE=sgman91;42676637]How do you know that he doesn't identify as a woman? You are assuming that based on his physical appearance.[/QUOTE] Nah, it says in the theme song that Pat himself feels he's a (really happy) man. Plus, physical appearance =/= physical sex. The gender cues you get from his physical appearance are his clothing and hair style, not whether he has a penis or not. [QUOTE=sgman91;42676637]This is a completely subjective argument. I would say the physical traits of a person are very relevant when describing a person as man. For example: "I saw a man walking down the street yesterday." This makes absolutely no claim about gender identity and is very clearly understood to reference his physical attributes, solely.[/QUOTE] Language is inherently subjective. And again, physical attributes =/= physical sex. My guess is when you see a man walking down the street you don't see his genitals or chromosomes, you see his clothing, hair style and how he carries himself. Those are all outward expressions of his gender identity, not his physical sex. [QUOTE=sgman91;42676637]Calling someone 'he' is saying they physically look like a man. If they want to attribute all those other things then be my guest, but that isn't what was intended.[/QUOTE] See, I don't believe that. "He" and "man" carry a lot more meaning and connotations than someone's physical sex, and I don't think you can just ignore all of that when using them. If you [I]are[/I] intending to use them in a way that ignores that baggage, you're not using language effectively, because they're going to carry that meaning whether that's your intention or not. [QUOTE=sgman91;42676637]Yes, he's a man, but he still doesn't fit the sociological expectations of a man in a similar way that a transsexual might not. Under your reasoning we also can't call a gay man a man because it's telling him he doesn't exist because he doesn't fit under the common conception of what a man is supposed to be.[/QUOTE] No, because in the majority of ways, and the most meaningful, important ways, he fits the definitions associated with "man". If he didn't, he'd be a straight transwoman or genderqueer. [QUOTE=sgman91;42676637]Nice emotional appeal.[/QUOTE] Not an appeal, just my genuine opinion. Like I said, if you want to be an arsehole, that's your prerogative. You could even be correct in the "definitions" argument (even though you're not in my view), but IMO doing something that's going to cause people hurt and upset, for no good reason other than some vague sense of "preserving clarity of language"; that is being an arsehole. [QUOTE=sgman91;42676637]No one uses those terms outside of gender studies and tumblr. Ask the average person aged 30+ and they won't have any idea what ciswoman means. Ironically, ciswoman isn't even in Webster's.[/QUOTE] Yeah, so you explain it to them and then they know. Neologisms are coined all the time, because they enrich the language by conveying meaning better than what we had already. [URL="http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/cisgender?q=cisgender"]It's in Oxford, btw.[/URL] [QUOTE=sgman91;42676637]I'm not claiming my definition will ALWAYS be clear, but that it will be MORE clear. All descriptions of variable possibilities has confusion in the most extreme circumstances.[/QUOTE] Those aren't particularly extreme as far as transsexual people go. [QUOTE=sgman91;42676637]Also, I would describe the first person as a trans woman and the second as a trans man.[/QUOTE] Okay, that contradicts what you were saying because the first person is of the male sex and the second person is of the female sex. Does your definition change depending on what clothes they're wearing? How does that improve clarity?

[QUOTE=sgman91;42677044]Strawman, my argument was never based on tradition for the sake of tradition. Ad hominem, no relevant argument presented.[/QUOTE] You can throw the names of fallacies around all you like, that won't actually strengthen you side at all. If people are interpreting your argument as a argument from tradition, and you aren't arguing that, then your argument is either flawed or worded so horribly wrong it isn't worth much.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;42677286]You can throw the names of fallacies around all you like, that won't actually strengthen you side at all.[/QUOTE] Yeah, but you accusing him of saying things he never said and then accusing him of believing things he doesn't sure doesn't make you look any better. 'If I don't understand your argument it's because you're wrong' is probably the worst argument possible.

[QUOTE=catbarf;42677330]Yeah, but you accusing him of saying things he never said and then accusing him of believing things he doesn't sure doesn't make you look any better. 'If I don't understand your argument it's because you're wrong' is probably the worst argument possible.[/QUOTE] If his wording (or method of debate) is genuinely causing people to see his argument as an argument from tradition rather than what it is meant to be, then someone, somewhere has gone wrong (hint: usually the person who put forward the argument). People understand his argument when it's an argument from tradition, they don't understand whatever argument he is actually using because that isn't what the argument seems to be.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;42677375]If his wording (or method of debate) is genuinely causing people to see his argument as an argument from tradition rather than what it is meant to be, then someone, somewhere has gone wrong (hint: usually the person who put forward the argument). People understand his argument when it's an argument from tradition, they don't understand whatever argument he is actually using because that isn't what the argument seems to be.[/QUOTE] I'm not seeing it as an argument from tradition to use established definitions for words, determined by majority use, rather than wholly adopt a new minority definition and be offended when people use the old one. A definition by its nature is based upon a majority use, you won't see definitions in a dictionary that are held by a minority of people. It's not about what's traditional, it's about what's colloquially used. For most people what we refer to in English as gender-specific pronouns also function as sexual identification when applied to people. I'm sure that will change, given time, but if you're going to change the meaning of words you're not in a position to get angry if the majority is confused by or disagrees with your deviation from the commonly accepted meaning. Edit: I don't have anything against calling Chelsea 'she', but I do recognize that for most people this is not at all intuitive. A website like Wikipedia, intended to be understood by as many people as possible, has to cater to that lowest common denominator, not what one vocal minority says is the most progressive solution.

[QUOTE=catbarf;42676381]So if a minority feels that a common definition is offensive, then the definition as used by the majority must change immediately? Have you really thought the implications of this idea through? I know Christians who hate Catholicism so much that any definition of 'Christian' that includes Catholics in it is offensive to them. Should the definition of Christian change because a minority is offended? Which minority do we conform to? Who makes this decision? How do we make other people follow the new meaning? Call me crazy but I think there comes a time when you can say 'sorry, but the common definition of these words is what it is, perhaps we can use alternate terminology to properly convey your position'. A definition is just a consensus, a common meaning determined by the majority. If you're redefining it every time a minority thinks it should be redefined then the very concept of a definition (ie most common usage) goes out the window.[/QUOTE] Religious belief isnt a debilitating mental condition that makes them uncomfortable to the point of suicide with who they are. they can get over it. transpeople cant. [editline]28th October 2013[/editline] definitions should be about accuracy, not majority rules. stating that "he" = male human is inaccurate because science has shown us that people don't always fit into "he" or "she". changing the definition hurts absolutely no one. [editline]28th October 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=catbarf;42677581]I'm not seeing it as an argument from tradition to use established definitions for words, determined by majority use, rather than wholly adopt a new minority definition and be offended when people use the old one. A definition by its nature is based upon a majority use, you won't see definitions in a dictionary that are held by a minority of people. It's not about what's traditional, it's about what's colloquially used. For most people what we refer to in English as gender-specific pronouns also function as sexual identification when applied to people. I'm sure that will change, given time, but if you're going to change the meaning of words you're not in a position to get angry if the majority is confused by or disagrees with your deviation from the commonly accepted meaning. Edit: I don't have anything against calling Chelsea 'she', but I do recognize that for most people this is not at all intuitive. A website like Wikipedia, intended to be understood by as many people as possible, has to cater to that lowest common denominator, not what one vocal minority says is the most progressive solution.[/QUOTE] there is nothing difficult to understand about "this is chelsea manning and she is a woman"

[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;42680814]there is nothing difficult to understand about "this is chelsea manning and she is a woman"[/QUOTE] Except that a [i]majority[/i] of the population will look at the picture and say 'but this is a man'. Which is why you use language that is accepted and understood by as most people when you're writing an article that is intended for as wide an audience as possible. Redefining language for the sake of avoiding unintentional emotional distress is admirable but it's not what dictionaries and encyclopedias are about.

[QUOTE=catbarf;42681182]Except that a [I]majority[/I] of the population will look at the picture and say 'but this is a man'. Which is why you use language that is accepted and understood by as most people when you're writing an article that is intended for as wide an audience as possible. Redefining language for the sake of avoiding unintentional emotional distress is admirable but it's not what dictionaries and encyclopedias are about.[/QUOTE] then the majority of the population should learn what being transgender is. pretty sure encyclopedias are supposed to be factual and calling chelsea manning a man is incorrect.

[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;42681228]then the majority of the population should learn what being transgender is. pretty sure encyclopedias are supposed to be factual and calling chelsea manning a man is incorrect.[/QUOTE] By a commonly accepted definition of 'man', one based on physical characteristics as much as self-identity, it is correct. Who are you to decide which definition is 'correct'? That's why we use the most common ones in formal writing, because a word is no more than a symbol for a common meaning. Encyclopedias do not present information according to minority definitions of common words in colloquial context, no matter what case can be made for their greater accuracy.

[QUOTE=catbarf;42681311]By a commonly accepted definition of 'man', one based on physical characteristics as much as self-identity, it is correct. Who are you to decide which definition is 'correct'? That's why we use the most common ones in formal writing, because a word is no more than a symbol for a common meaning. Encyclopedias do not present information according to minority definitions of common words in colloquial context, no matter what case can be made for their greater accuracy.[/QUOTE] the commonly accepted definition of the word man is stupid and harmful to transgendered people [editline]28th October 2013[/editline] you're arguing to keep the status quo simply because it's the status quo. it's really dumb. [editline]28th October 2013[/editline] and sgman idk what the fuck he's saying. something about how changing a definition is going to have some dire consequence on societal language. it's really melodramatic.

[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;42681378]the commonly accepted definition of the word man is stupid and harmful to transgendered people[/QUOTE] Then find a way to express the idea besides the word 'man', because the common definition doesn't fit. This is how language works. You don't redefine words that don't fit until they do fit, and then complain when nobody else follows your lead. Language is purely symbolic and meanings are defined by common acceptance. There is no arbiter, no judge, no one sitting on high declaring what words mean. If most people don't accept the meaning you ascribe to a particular symbol, then you need another symbol to carry that particular meaning, at least until the accepted definition for the original symbol changes suitably through common acceptance. But you can't [i]force[/i] people to start using a word differently just because you prefer a different definition. Have you studied linguistics at all?

[QUOTE=catbarf;42681420]Then find a way to express the idea besides the word 'man', because the common definition doesn't fit. This is how language works. You don't redefine words that don't fit until they do fit, and then complain when nobody else follows your lead. Language is purely symbolic and meanings are defined by common acceptance. There is no arbiter, no judge, no one sitting on high declaring what words mean. If most people don't accept the meaning you ascribe to a particular symbol, then you need another symbol to carry that particular meaning, at least until the accepted definition for the original symbol changes suitably through common acceptance. But you can't [i]force[/i] people to start using a word differently just because you prefer a different definition. Have you studied linguistics at all?[/QUOTE] look. i really don't care how language works or if you study linguistics. when someone makes it clear that they are transgender and would like to be recognized as such, intentionally misgendering them is asshole behavior and attempting to justify it using dictionary definitions is also asshole behavior. how about instead of ascribing to the dictionary like it's a holy book you do something else, like not be an asshole?

[QUOTE=catbarf;42681420]Then find a way to express the idea besides the word 'man', because the common definition doesn't fit. This is how language works. You don't redefine words that don't fit until they do fit, and then complain when nobody else follows your lead. Language is purely symbolic and meanings are defined by common acceptance. There is no arbiter, no judge, no one sitting on high declaring what words mean. If most people don't accept the meaning you ascribe to a particular symbol, then you need another symbol to carry that particular meaning, at least until the accepted definition for the original symbol changes suitably through common acceptance. But you can't [i]force[/i] people to start using a word differently just because you prefer a different definition. Have you studied linguistics at all?[/QUOTE] Languages change over time. Pushing a change that is minor at best in overall implications has almost no issues. We stopped calling black people "niggers", despite it being the common phrase due to it no longer being politically correct. Seriously, you are coming off as a bigot of the highest order due to this, and you had posted after the most recent additions to the post and edited them out to make your position better or purposefully ignored them.

The amount of prejudiced stupidity that had to exist just to make this a controversy on Wiki is mind-boggling. Of all the things Manning deserves to be criticized for, the fact that she used to be a he does not even fit onto the list. Manning being a Trans is just about the only thing about him/her I don't despise. S/He's still an irresponsible traitor regardless of gender, and s/he can rot in prison regardless of what's next to the "Gender" box on her/his file.

[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;42681471]look. i really don't care how language works or if you study linguistics. when someone makes it clear that they are transgender and would like to be recognized as such, intentionally misgendering them is asshole behavior and attempting to justify it using dictionary definitions is also asshole behavior. how about instead of ascribing to the dictionary like it's a holy book you do something else, like not be an asshole?[/QUOTE] Except if you are inventing new meanings for words and then getting pissy when not everyone else is on the same page, it makes [i]you[/i] equally an asshole. I have no problem calling Chelsea a she, just as I refer to my two trans friends in real life as she. What you seem to fail to realize is that most people won't, and it's [i]not[/i] because they're trans-hating ingrates, it's because [i]you[/i] are attempting to redefine words that most people think have pretty concrete definitions, and it's utterly childish to insist that everyone else change to fit your views. And it won't happen, either, at least not for a long time. Find another way to express the concept you're trying to express, or learn to deal with it when people say 'no, (x) means (y), not (z)', and don't be surprised if media that is attempting to use the least ambiguous, most common definitions settles for an older, more widely accepted one regardless of how you personally feel about its accuracy.

[QUOTE=catbarf;42681550]Except if you are inventing new meanings for words and then getting pissy when not everyone else is on the same page, it makes [I]you[/I] equally an asshole. I have no problem calling Chelsea a she, just as I refer to my two trans friends in real life as she. What you seem to fail to realize is that most people won't, and it's [I]not[/I] because they're trans-hating ingrates, it's because [I]you[/I] are attempting to redefine words that most people think have pretty concrete definitions, and it's utterly childish to insist that everyone else change to fit your views. And it won't happen, either, at least not for a long time. Find another way to express the concept you're trying to express, or learn to deal with it when people say 'no, (x) means (y), not (z)', and don't be surprised if media that is attempting to use the least ambiguous, most common definitions settles for an older, more widely accepted one regardless of how you personally feel about its accuracy.[/QUOTE] you can use the same logic to justify calling someone nigger, jap, redskin etc the majority of people are ignorant about transgenderism and the current definition is inaccurate. it doesn't get any special privilege for being the commonly held belief. it's wrong. e: not to mention wikipedia policy is to use the gender self-identification the person expresses, and not what the dictionary says, because wikipedia editors aren't blind idiots who stick to definition regardless of how harmful it is.