Forum: Author Hangout

Guilty as charged! 22 'sun dress' 11 'sundress'. Will decide which one to use and change them.

In narrative or dialog? And what is the POV?

If you have dialog where one character consistently says "sun dress" while another character says "sundress" that's just giving each character a unique voice.

Also if you have a multiple 1st person POV and the usage only changes with a change in narrator, that too, is not something I would call inconsistent.

Nowadays, it's a "theydress."

Sorry, but for me the use of 'they' for a single person implies it's a verified case of multiple personalities – now called Dissociative identity disorder (DID).

HM.

I find it far easier to use 'they' than suffer the dissonance of calling a biological male 'she' or 'her' and a biological female 'he' or 'him'.

For me both reach the same level of dissonance. The singular they is supposed to be for unknown gender.

Shakespeare would disagree (see above - man/their rather than man/his).

The Comedy of Errors (~1594):

"There's not a man I meet but doth salute me / As I were their well-acquainted friend."

I'm not so sure about that. Is the their in that actually a singular use? I don't think so. He is effectively referring to all the men who have met him.

Certainly Shakespeare used the singular they, but I don't think this is actually an example of that.

ETA: That Shakespeare used the singular they does not mean every use of they by Shakespeare was singular.

Or where a person is neither male nor female.

Empty set.

Hrm. Not sure if that's an empty set. I'd have to think about it.

There are numerous cases of individuals who are both, though, from a biological standpoint. Intersex individuals, XXY, XYY, etc. They (:)) should generally be addressed by their preferred gender (or lack thereof, if they so choose).

There are numerous cases of individuals who are both

No, there are some that are externally ambiguous due to messed up genetics, but true hermaphrodites are not possible in the human population.

What you may get from the messed up genetics you mention is a woman with an oversized clit large enough to look like a penis, but she has no testicles, or a man with ovaries, but no vagina or uterus.

*A true hermaphrodite is fully functional as both genders

ETA: I would also not call them numerous. These cases are rare, less than half a percent of the population, probably less than 0.1%

The most common is Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (AIS), in which involves a mutation in the gene that cells use to process testosterone. In the case of Complete AIS, external genitalia look like typical female but internal develop as typical male. Partial AIS gets even more complicated.

And again, it's a rare condition and will not produce a true hermaphrodite.

And again, it's a rare condition and will not produce a true hermaphrodite.

To make this clear for other readers on why he is likely claiming a "true hermaphrodite" is biologically impossible for humans. Is because during fetal development, both males and females start with a pair of proto-ovaries.

For the males that development ultimately results in the proto-ovaries descending in the body and eventually becoming the testes. Which would be where men produce sperm. So in that respect it is an either/or scenario, you're either going to have testes, or ovaries, but nobody is going to (naturally) have both. (Now as medical technology advances and artificially grown organs become more common, that could change. But it is something that cannot occur "in nature" for humans.)

Now as to the position of gender being determined solely on the basis of if someone has testes or ovaries, that is an oversimplification. As pointed out, there are a number of genes involved in ultimately determining gender and how they express can result in a wider array of outcomes.

However, even for those known genetic lottery outcomes. It is very much a lottery type outcome. People diagnosed with any of the known conditions where "things don't match up properly" combine together to still be estimated to comprise only a fraction of a fraction of the total population.

Most of the "trans-community" as it stands, seems to be presenting in that manner more as a matter of personal preference. In other words, they're making a choice based more on traditional gender roles/preferences more than anything having to do with physical biology. (I like to do ____ therefore, I must be a ____)

For the younger set, this likely translates into a number of "tomboys" being told/convinced they're trans, rather than girls who like doing things the guys typically enjoy.

Likewise for boys who are more inclined towards things typically enjoyed by girls.

They're rigidly enforcing gender-roles, and proclaiming those who cross those lines to be trans. And that is a major problem.

To make this clear for other readers on why he is likely claiming a "true hermaphrodite" is biologically impossible for humans. Is because during fetal development, both males and females start with a pair of proto-ovaries.

No, I'm claiming that because that's what all the applicable science on the issue says.

A true hermaphrodite is fully functional and capable of reproducing as both a male and female at the same time.

For a human to qualify as a true hermapherodite he/she would have to be capable of impregnating a female and being impregnated by a male without medical intervention.

Through all of human history the number of confirmed cases of this is ZERO.

True hermaphrodites are quite common among plants and worms. AFIK a true hermapherodite has never been observed in any vertebrate, though some amphibians and fish can change genders, they are never both at the same time.

Fluid, non-binary humans can change genders at will, ten times a minute if they wish.

Delusion biology.

For a human to qualify as a true hermapherodite he/she would have to be capable of impregnating a female and being impregnated by a male without medical intervention.

Through all of human history the number of confirmed cases of this is ZERO.

And I gave the reason why that is so, even if you weren't aware of it previously.

You can't have functional testes and functional ovaries, it is one or the other, because they start as the same fetal tissue before differentiating, and for humans that process is all or nothing.

Although it should be additionally noted that for most of the people who are either "genetically intersexed" or "gestationally intersexed" also tend to strongly trend towards the reproductively sterile even before the doctors did anything to them.

Which tends to put a hard stop on where nature considers them. It also places a deeper question mark on the trans individuals who actually did have kids before transitioning to the other gender.

You can't have functional testes and functional ovaries, it is one or the other, because they start as the same fetal tissue before differentiating, and for humans that process is all or nothing.

There are a small number of males with functional testes and ovarian tissue (though no uterus or vagina).

Possibly these are the result of being a human chimera, which results from fraternal twin embryos merging. This is again very rare but has documented cases.

One interesting side effect of this is that you can have one person where tissue sample taken from different parts of the body will yield different DNA.

Possibly these are the result of being a human chimera, which results from fraternal twin embryos merging. This is again very rare but has documented cases.

One interesting side effect of this is that you can have one person where tissue sample taken from different parts of the body will yield different DNA.

The Chimera's are interesting, and they're becoming better understood thanks to the proliferation of DNA testing now being done for a wide range of things, including family history/genealogical research via companies like 23 and Me, Ancestry, and others.

But it has also been interesting to read about the legal cases where the mother was coming back with test results indicating they were an aunt instead because of that. I vaguely recall an intersexed result in the mix of reporting on that as well, as I recall.

But human chimeras are typically a different thing than the trans/intersexed grouping in general.

neither was the result of chimerization.

How would they know for sure? I would think that would take rather extensive DNA testing to rule it out.

My understanding is that chimerization is rarely limited to a single organ, and if the gonads merged, there are usually clear signs that other organs have too.

This is my understanding as well, that doesn't negate that eliminating chimerization would require DNA tests on multiple tissue samples taken from multiple locations because where the divisions lie is not likely to be predictable.

Chimeras almost always are the result of blood sharing. Maternal-fetal blood sharing, transfusions or bone marrow transplants allow the DNA in the blood to be different from the the rest of the body. Small amounts of foreign DNA can be found in other organs but not in significant amounts.

Agree with the lack of a 'true hermaphrodite', but that's irrelevant to the discussion. Someone with mixed external and internal genitalia, or both (even if something is non-functional) shouldn't have other people forcing them into a box of 'male' or 'female' based on genetics or whatever else.

And 'numerous' is reasonable. I didn't say commonplace - far from it - but it's not one in a billion or ten billion or whatever, either. The entire definition of 'intersex' is controversial. By the most generous definition (and this is still using only medically recognized non-XX/XY) 1.7% of the population is nominally 'intersex'. By the most narrow, 0.018%. That's a huge range, from well over 5 million Americans to about 50,000.

On the other hand, 50,000 is 'numerous'. 0.1% would be 300,000, significantly larger than the city in which I reside.

I would guess you are aware of the David Reimer case that was the basis for an explosion in sex reassignment based on false data.

For me, this comes down to simple politeness. If someone, regardless of their plumbing, wishes to be addressed by a particular set of pronouns, it costs me nothing to be polite and follow their wishes. If I fail to do so, I'm actively choosing to be rude. It's no different than calling them any other rude term.

I know too many people for whom that applies to choose the path of rudeness. Some of them are very nice and definitely don't deserve it, whether one is highly approving or highly disapproving of their choices. Some of them are complete jerks, but even then, I'm not really a fan of being rude to them in return.

Mostly, it's their choice, in the end. I would be greatly irritated if someone insisted that they could make those choices for me, so I wouldn't presume to tell them that they're choosing incorrectly.

Nah. I can dare interact with them, because if I don't know their pronouns and get it wrong, they can politely request that I shift. If they don't, that's their rudeness. While there are plenty of 'horror stories' of flamingly adamant people who take massive offense at a fumbled pronoun, that's generally mocked within the very community that cares about pronouns.

On the other hand, if - in a setting where it's obvious (Zoom call with pronouns displayed, a meeting with name cards with pronouns listed, etc), ignoring such notification is rude.

Golden rule, people! And, no, the golden rule doesn't and has never meant that you override their beliefs and treat them as if they were a copy of you, it means give them the same level of respect you believe you are entitled to. If you can't call someone 'he' when they ask to be called 'he', don't get upset if they call you 'her' when you would prefer to be called 'him'.

For me, this comes down to simple politeness. If someone, regardless of their plumbing, wishes to be addressed by a particular set of pronouns, it costs me nothing to be polite and follow their wishes.

Myself, I would probably cooperate up to the point they start insisting on made up pronouns. There are three singular pronouns, he, she, it. Pick one.

Agreed (as amply documented elsewhere).

English would likely be better off if we had a fully singular non-gendered pronoun in our bag of tools (e.g. 'ze/zer' or what have you). But we don't, and we're just barely on the path to evolving one, which is going to come from usage and not from anyone forcing it.

In the meantime, and as I mentioned only, the community which cares most about pronouns tends to mock people who get so wrapped up in 'ze' or 'ke' or whatever that they take umbrage at some other word. It's fine if you prefer something non-standard, but accept that others won't follow, and give them a standard-English out (e.g. 'they').

English would likely be better off if we had a fully singular non-gendered pronoun in our bag of tools

Maybe, if something developed naturally.

Activists trying to force something into the language (e.g. 'ze/zer' or what have you)? Absolutely not.

Exactly. If they start using it and it catches on, that's fine. If they deplatform you, get you fired, get you kicked out of school, or whatever for refusing to follow their demands, that's a VERY different thing.

Which they've done to many already. The only thing they are missing are the hammer and sickle arm bands.

If I ever run into that, my plan is along similar lines:

I identify as a demigod. My preferred pronoun is "His Divine Majesty, Emperor of the known universe".

Most agreed; I was in no way endorsing some authority (something English doesn't have anyway) imposing such a pronoun. If the usage of any one singular non-gendered pronoun becomes common, run with it.

Slight disagreement on your second sentence. If you mean 'force' legally, then I completely agree. If you mean 'force' as in using it loudly and as often as possible, I disagree. That's part of the natural evolution of English. A group of people picking a word and using it and repeating that it means what they mean it to mean (apologies to Louis Carroll) is sometimes how we get words. As long as there's no legal compulsion, more power to them.

I was in no way endorsing some authority (something English doesn't have anyway) imposing such a pronoun.

It isn't some English language authority trying to impose it, it's the woke/"social justice" crowd doing it.

If you dissent, they will try to get you fired from your job, expelled from your college/university, and deplatformed or at least demonitized on-line. In short they will do every thing they can do destroy your life.

they don't understand that their machinations will untimately be self-defeating.

And how many dissenter's lives will they have destroyed by the time they get to the point that it becomes self-defeating?

The problem is more the tactics they are using than their end goal.

Welcome to our version of the Maoist Cultural Revolution.

If you don't already know the story google Bright Shang. Was a victim of the Cultural Revolution as a child and now a victim of the woke crowd at the University of Michigan.

Bright Shang. Was a victim of the Cultural Revolution as a child and now a victim of the woke crowd at the University of Michigan.

"Biography of Bright Sheng, U-M professor and composer
Date
July 21, 2003
Contact
Contact: umichnews@umich.edu
Social Media
Share on: Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on LinkedIn
ANN ARBOR—Composer Bright Sheng, who joined the University of Michigan faculty in 1995. grew up in China during the Cultural Revolution of 1966-1976 when young people were sent to farms to become "reeducated" by the peasants. Those who had some talent in the performing arts—Madame Mao's pet project—were exempt from this rule. Sheng, from the age of four, studied piano with his mother, until the Revolution. "The Red Guards took our piano away. I didn't miss it, though. I thought, well, now I don't have to practice. But one day I heard a piano playing on the radio, and I got music-sick. I sneaked into the junior high classroom one day to play the school piano. The teacher locked it up every day, so I would break it open."

Revolution. Mao feared people who knew too much. When we kids reached 16, we had no educational prospects and no jobs. Obviously we were becoming a social problem, so Mao said, 'Go to the country to be reeducated by the peasants.' Only professional artists who were protected by Mao's wife could escape working as a peasant, so I decided to audition on piano, and my piano kept me from becoming a farmer."

His talent allowed Sheng to work as a pianist and percussionist in a folk music and dance troupe in Qinghai Province on the Tibetan border. Over time, his musical pursuits expanded to include arranging and conducting.Seven years in Qinghai taught Sheng two life-shaping lessons. Because he knew as much about piano as anyone around him, he was forced to become self taught by watching and listening to other artists when he visited cities, and "to rasp quickly whatever they were doing that might be helpful to me as a musician."

Secondly, because of the remoteness of the Qinghai province and the resulting scarcity of performance venues, Sheng turned his attention to regional folk music, little realizing how great a part it would one day play in his life.

In 1978, after the Cultural Revolution, universities reopened and Sheng was accepted into the Shanghai Conservatory of Music where he received a bachelor's degree in music composition.

Sheng arrived in New York in 1982 full of potential and promise but with empty pockets. He earned a master's degree from Queens College, CUNY, and a doctorate from Columbia University. Leonard Bernstein was among his teachers in New York, along with George Perle, Hugo Weisgall, Mario Davidovsky, Chou Wneg-Chung, and Jack Beeson. "An important part of what I understood about composing comes from the five years I spent studying with Leonard Bernstein," Sheng says. he was doing you could do too. He set me up with a way of thinking in music composition that benefits every minute of my life."

As a product, or victim, of the Cultural Revolution, Sheng has intense feelings about that history. His 1988 orchestral piece, "H'un (Lacerations): In Memoriam 1966-1976" is drawn from those oppressive years and depicts the crimes and losses inflicted by the Cultural Revolution. This work won the composer more than positive critical reviews and is just one of his more than 50 major works. The influence of this time in history comes to the surface once again in "Madame Mao."

Sheng returns regularly to China where his music is now performed. But he has said that he still feels some bitterness about the Revolution.

And where does that name "Bright" come from. Sheng says his name in Chinese is Sheng Zong-Liang, with the family name first. "My first names means something like 'bright lights.' I once read a book that referred to an Englishman named Mr. Bright, so I thought if might be good to be known as Bright Sheng where people speak English. I did not know the connotation of smartness at the time."

He was "protected" by being sent to the desert in internal exile for 7 years?

I was taught a mix of gender-neutral 'they' and gender-neutral 'he' in grade school. 'They' made a hell of a lot more sense than taking a gendered word and requiring people to read it as if it were ungendered.

By the time I reached college (at a not-very-liberal institution, mind you) gender-neutral 'he' was highly frowned upon and 'they' was strongly encouraged. It was reassuring to realize that 'they' has a long and storied history as a gender-neutral singular pronoun.

I don't find it Orwellian at all, honestly. I don't feel a lot of dissonance in calling someone by the terms they wish to be called. I do understand that some people do, though.

The problem with taking umbrage at a 'forced shift in language' is that we do this all the time. English, going back to pre-Shakespearean days, has often evolved when some expression that used to be perfectly fine became offensive. It's not new, it's not 'politically correct' in the post-1980 pejorative sense, it's how things have always evolved. Within my lifetime there have been a succession of words that were 'inoffensive' for what are currently described as 'black people', 'native Americans', and so forth. I'm certain some people found it 'dissonant' to be asked to not use other words.

This works in interesting ways. I have friends who identify with and wish to be considered 'queer'. That was a deeply offensive term not all that long ago, and it's somewhat dissonant for me to call them 'queer'. However, it's not my decision. They identify as 'queer', and that overrules whatever I might think of the word. I can choose to not use any such term at all and avoid the problem, but whether or not I find it dissonant is pretty irrelevant. What I can't do without being rude is tell them 'No, you're gay, you're not queer.'

Singular 'they' is - in my opinion, obviously - a good compromise and people of good will on either side should be fine with it. Some people on both sides won't, but that's life. It's similar to the above - most 'queer' people will accept 'gay' as a compromise; some won't.

I'm not in the least surprised that both 'irregardless' and 'literally' meaning 'figuratively' have long, sad histories. English was, is, and always will be a mess (a glorious, amazing mess, and more glorious and amazing because it's such a mess, but nevertheless a mess).

Sorry, but for me the use of 'they' for a single person implies it's a verified case of multiple personalities – now called Dissociative identity disorder (DID).

So, a DIDdress ;)

Nowadays, it's a "theydress."

What about the weredress?

What about the weredress?

Not as good as the undress :)