What it is to be a man does vary. But all definitions pre2010 agreed on the penis.

And if the author called pooh a she it would have been independent of genitals

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Oct 29 2019 03:37pm

I heard of women described as manly before 2010 and it was never used to imply that she was growing a penis

Correct. It would have been to imply a vagina to frame how other characters treated her and how her voice sounded which corresponds to hormones almost exclusively tied to her genitals.

Skinned hit the nail in the head. What it is to be a man or woman changed drastically for millenia, except the genitals, until around 2010 when the genitals were removed for people conforming to the characteristics that were never stagnant.



And that's evidence for me. Manly means has vagina but has some characteristic (be it voice, appearance, etc) of a man. It represents a disconnect, not passing for a man.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Oct 29 2019 03:42pm

I just don't think that's the most accurate way to portray how people determined what pronouns to use. This came as a surprise to me but not everybody had a penis inspection day at school so for most people their gym coach had to use non-penis based characteristics to determine if a student was male or female.



but if "man" is determined by "has penis" then the only thing "being manly" can mean is "having more penis".

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Oct 29 2019 03:43pm

you keep repeating what is i think a false premise. that people must see genitalia before assigning a gender pronoun. in modern times men and women dress differently enough that this is almost never needed. and when gender pronouns in a linguistic sense were created humans were in loincloths where you could quite literally see their genitalia and had predefined roles based on genitalia of hunter or cook.

if in modern day you saw a little boy in a dress you might call them "she" automatically. general rules don't get invalidated by mistakes.



as i've said a few times now the common thread of what "man" means over time is "has penis". when someone calls someone "manly" they mean other than penis, one of the characteristics that in past and present has been used to define what a man is besides the penis. picture a venn diagram of definitions of "man", at the center (pre sjw 2010ish) all intersected at "has a penis". but in 1800 you could be called manly for playing croquet, in 1900 you could be called manly for having aspirations outside of a marriage, in 2000 you could be called manly for wearing 'boy clothes'. in all cases someone with a penis wouldn't be 'manly', they'd be a man. unless it was to emphasize how many characteristics of being 'manly' they express, on top of having a penis. 'that man sure is manly' and 'that woman sure is manly' refer to 2 completely separate types of people. one is an alpha male, the other is a barely passable man in appearance at best or just someone wearing a polo with khaki shorts at worst.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Oct 29 2019 04:00pm

just a quick Q that always confused me
if I'm shitposting about history and describing the events of the arab spring and the role played by the cablegate leaks, do SJWs want me to call Bradley Manning "Chelsea" when talking about a time when he was still going by "Bradley"? Is it deadnaming if its within a historical context? Ie something like "The Arab Spring's proximate spark was the released of diplomatic cables leaked to Wikileaks by Bradley Manning on February 3, 2010". If I just said "Manning", would I be guilty of misgendering-by-omission?
also, if I were to time travel via delorean back into the year 2010, would I, with my seemingly omniscient future knowledge, be required to refer to Bradley Manning as "Chelsea" at a time he still identified as a man? I'm unsure of how these time travel rules work. It would appear from stack overflow's mods that even if the misgendering would be a potential future event, I'm still judged by whether I would commit that offense that hasn't happened yet. By that same logic, if I knew Bradley Manning would become Chelsea Manning and knowingly did not use his 'her' name and pronouns, I'd be committing the past version of futurecrime, no?
Now lets say Bradley Manning was traveling backwards through time on a linear course via time machine to a time when he still identified as a man, and I was traveling forwards through time from the past in another time machine, asynchronous from his experience of time travel and already with preknowledge of future events in the era I am returning to. At what point, if any, do the pronouns required change? Is it at the point where we cross paths in time, around 2014 if we started at the same time, time itself of course being a relative concept from an external extradimensional observer in this case.

If you're joining in now:

Up until recently gender and sex were completely correlated with one another and non-CIS groups were so marginalized they were not represented in language or data sets, nor did they exist in any meaningful way in culture and discourse.

However transgenderism has always been part of the human experience, to the point that there was a transgendered emperor of the Roman Empire, and the idea that these people do not exist or should not have equal rights within the social contract is being challenged.

Am I being fair Snipa and Thor?




I have been very interested at the intersection of dementia and transgenderism. I've only met a couple transgendered seniors so far and they were such poor historians we honestly did not figure it out until way into the hospitalizations.

This post was edited by Skinned on Oct 29 2019 04:21pm

I'm not claiming you have to make an inspection of genitals to assign a pronoun. I'm claiming the opposite, that you virtually never think about genitals when making a pronoun assignment. However, if you think pronouns are based on genitals, then it's a logical conclusion that genitals must have had been inspected to make a pronoun assignment since androgynous, intersex, eunuchs, etc. have existed all throughout history.


So there's a lot of characteristics that define a man that aren't based on having a penis, and since we don't look at most people's penis and haven't for thousands of years it would seem obvious to me that we have historically made pronoun assignments based on those secondary characteristics. What you described in that second response is more or less a point for point affirmation of my claims up to now.

it's not logical to claim something needs to be inspected when it can be simply implied. ive never said not thought inspection was needed, you use context clues of clothes etc so that we dont have to think about genitalia. it would be quite distracting. and yet men still do this regularly, see a woman and instantly start to guess her nipple size/color, what she enjoys sexually, etc.

and in any case the context here is the genesis of gender pronouns to ascertain whether they were exclusively tied to genitals from the beginning. which they were, because all of the pronouns referred to people with those genitals. it's not that it has ALL to do with the genitals, it's that no matter how you slice the pie genitals are in the pie, pre2010. there is a correlation with "men" and doing certain roles in society, but the fact that all definitions of men refer to people with penises mean that penises are invariably tied to what it is to be "man", pre2010. i fully allow for change, as i said, as long as change is acknowledged. i'd have the same reaction if someone at my work asked me to do my job differently and then claimed that that's how it was done all along. i'd still change how i do things, i'd just contest their assertion.



deadnaming follows the same individualized mandate as pronouns. if they refer to their pre-trans state you can too, if they were "always chelsea" you're to respect that too.

this brings up a pro-trans argument that's often misconstrued. when trans women wear stereo-typically female clothes antitrans people claim they're just conforming, when in reality they're trying to signal as female to avoid the interaction where they need to state their pronoun.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Oct 29 2019 04:33pm