So I have something I've been struggling with, but have been hesitant to talk to you about. Though it may sound silly, it's about pronouns. lol

Haha, You of all people do not need to worry about my pronouns. If you remember to, use "she"; otherwise, don't worry about it. Unless that wasn't your question.

It was, sort of. Would it bother you if I referred to you as "he", honestly?

Only if you did it deliberately. Honestly, I probably wouldn't even notice.

I guess this is where I struggle the most. Biologically, you were born a male. Now I understand the gender vs biological sex thing, and the gender dysphoria thing, but I guess I have trouble saying that a biologically born male is a biological female. I understand that you feel that you are a woman gender-wise.

Why do pronouns refer to biological sex rather than gender? I mean, it's a matter of definition, and the creators of English probably didn't think to distinguish the two.

Because you're a physical, biological person?

I'm also an emotional, mental person.

Then it almost seems like either should fit. Why is this so confusing? lol

Haha, In my opinion, pronouns replace the name, and a name is attached to identity. If someone identifies with a certain gender, then it makes the most sense, definition-wise, to use their preferred pronoun.

Hmm, an interesting argument. I usually think of them as tied to specific physical people I guess, but people are both physical and mental. I still feel like both would be valid in my opinion, but I can see your point.

Go halfway? "She" with a lisp?

Hahaha, Make "she" with your mouth, but say "he" with your diaphragm.

Rofl, Perfect.

Ok, another question. But I want cold, calculating Jordan that will poke holes in my argument. This is going to be offensive, but I have been told this by people and cannot think of a good rebuttal for it.

Say we're in Middle Earth (sick, right?). A dwarf wanted to be a human, underwent surgeries to look like one, learned to talk like one, etc. Would you call them a human?

Hmm... Good question. Well, the first issue with the question is wording: "wanted to be a human". It should be worded "saw himself as a human, and could not see himself as a dwarf".

Fair point. We'll say I said it that way.

Done.

Though to be fair, if you saw yourself as one, you'd want to actually physically be one too, likely. So I was only half insensitive.

Hahaha. So there are a couple decent pathos arguments, but I know you're looking for a logos argument. And if you wanted to really piss a liberal off, you'd have not used Middle Earth, but instead asked what if a white person identified as a black person.

Is that offensive? I am so out of the loop on what's not ok.

It would be offensive if the white person did not have the shared experience of collective black people, which is almost certainly the case, no matter whether they were adopted into a black family or not. (My boss is white and was adopted into a southern black family, so we've talked a bit about this.)

Ah. I almost always mean well, so I've sometimes offended people without realizing it.

Oh, I totally get it. It's a minefield. I give people the benefit of the doubt if I can--

I'm glad you know I'm never meaning to make you sad or mad or whatever.

--and you've certainly earned one.

Much appreciated.

Okay, so here's my answer. The question was, "Would I call the dwarf a human?" Unless it would be incredibly offensive to humans, yes I would, not as a matter of fact, but as a matter of respect. If calling my dwarven friend a dwarf made him feel disrespected, and assuming humans wouldn't be incredibly offended by the dwarf taking that identity, I would want to preserve my friend's sense of respect and preserve the relationship.

Odds are that if he and I see things differently, it's because we have different experiences. I cannot possibly know what it is like to be a dwarf, nor can I know why he is absolutely certain he is human. In general, it is best to give the person ownership of their own person. It is rare that you know more about a person than they know about themselves.

Things change when people identify as nonsentient beings, and I don't know where to draw the line, to be honest. But in this case, barring some Middle Earth lore, I don't see the harm in calling him human.

I guess the previous statement (the matter one) is where I get stuck. I think of it as a matter of fact, despite having respect for someone. I have trouble saying something isn't what I see it being, even for someone's benefit. Now, that said--

Hey, 2+2=5, alright?

STAHP

Hahaha sorry, go on.

Now, that said, I do not typically run around emphasizing differences I see or drawing attention to most things that are only going to cause relational strife. I see no need or reason to. Relationships and people are important to me. So I have a balance.

Good. They aren't to a lot of people. 😕

I'm not going to lie, it is a challenge to live this way. I have strong views on [certain non-salvation-critical biblical topics]. If people ask, I'm not going to hide it, and I won't change my stance because it offends someone. But I value people and relationships, so I try to keep it to myself, as scripture itself instructs.

So, all of that said, I will probably just refer to you as Jordan most of the time. lol

That's fine.

Who needs pronouns when you can just say your name all the time?

I'm guessing you understand the difference between likelihood and probability? [Note: In all cases except in Bayesian probability, "likelihood" and "probability" mean the same thing.]

It's like 2am here, Jordan. I may know the difference, but my brain gives not one crap about which is which. XD

Same here. I can barely remember and I found it interesting, but that's not the point. The point is you know that there is a difference in a certain context: Bayesian probability. In any other context, they mean the same thing. So, if someone is talking about Bayesian likelihood, and you're talking about regular probability, you're going to mean different things with the same word.

Then I should have said, "In all likelihood".

Hahahaha

You made me say it. You monster.

Anyway, my point is that when you say "he" you're talking in the context of biology. When I say "he" I'm talking in the context of identity.

Yes.

Are we both right? Kind of. It depends on the discourse. So the question is, which one is more pedantic? Which is the default? If I say "likelihood", in MOST conversations, I'm talking basic probability, even though I know that in Bayesian probability, it means something else.

I feel like I've come out of this conversation knowing both more and less than when I started.

Gender does that. xkcd made that point several years ago. haha

I would make the argument, starting from an agreement that gender identity and biology are correlated but separate, that the default should be the context of identity. When you use the pronoun "me" you are referring to yourself, not to your biological sex. If we were in a biology lab or something--if it was clear we were talking about genes--then "he" would be appropriate for me.

While they may be separate, I guess I see them as inextricably linked, with the biological self being the primary distinguishing characteristic. If I were pointing out an African American man on the street, I wouldn't say, "There is a father and middle school music teacher right there." I instead say, "There is an African American man with (distinguishing physical characteristics) right there." Now, that brings up the point of what about after reassignment surgery, which I would still refer to the biological self. [Note: In the hindsight of not-2am, C thinks his example was a poor one to show the link he sees between identity and biology.]

Okay. What if you saw Michael Jackson walking down the street and you didn't know he was African American? Would you say he was white or he was black?

I would likely say what I thought he looked like. However, if I knew that he was one or the other, I would say that he was whatever color I knew he was.

Okay, and if you were talking to someone who didn't know he was black, but you did, would you say "that black man over there"? My point, albeit roundabout, is that in your example, you were saying "African American" rather than "father" or "middle school teacher" because it distinguished the person from the other people around him. It identified him. If you saw me post-transition, and I looked as female as most women, would you use "man" to identify me to someone who did not know me?

Hmm. The correct term would be transgender woman, in that case.

If it was obvious, perhaps, though more likely you'd just say "the person in the pink dress", 'cause my dress is REALLLY pink.

My point is that in this example, we're using identifiers for a different purpose than when we're using pronouns to talk to or about each other.

An interesting point. I guess I still see them as inextricably linked, though I will have to think on this some more. I do see what you're saying, though.

Yes, until you conclude that they aren't inextricably linked, this conversation just won't ever make sense. 😕 I only believe they aren't linked because I've experienced it myself. Maybe I would have come to the conclusion if someone I knew well was trans, but I don't.

I know why we as people can't come together and talk about things like this, but I feel like everyone would be so much better off if they did. And I appreciate you always being so open to talking to me about this stuff. I know it's close to your heart.

I agree. It only works when people trust each other, though, and so they have to get to know each other first.

True.

I love conversations like this. Absolutely love them.

I'm glad to hear it. 😀

Every argument I made tonight I hadn't considered before this conversation, aside from the respect argument which wasn't as fully developed until this conversation. So this conversation was good for me too.

I've always been intellectually stimulated by our conversations, Jordan. I'm glad to hear it's reciprocal.

Oh, totally. I'd be surprised if you got more out of our talks than I do.