Trans

Can a Person Demand the Government Not Acknowledge Traditional Gender at All?

Oregon citizen convinces a judge to change sex to 'nonbinary.'

|

Gender signs
Augusto Cabral / Dreamstime

In what appears to be the first ruling of its kind, an Oregon judge has quietly determined that a citizen can legally be identified as neither sex.

The person at the heart of the case, Jamie Shupe, was biologically born as a male and had begun hormone treatments to transition to living life as a woman. But ultimately Shupe decided that Shupe felt to be neither male nor female, and according to The New York Times, got two doctors to attest to this "nonbinary" gender status.

According to the Times, Oregon's official legal recognition of a gender change doesn't specifically require that a person declare themselves to be male or female and is more like getting a name change. But this appears to be the first time that somebody has legally requested to be referred to as neither and has been approved. Jamie will next be attempting to convince Oregon to allow for a "nonbinary" option for drivers licenses.

There are several different ways to look at this case, and we want to separate out expectations people should have when dealing with the government versus how we interact with our culture and private society.

Shupe's request raises the question of how much government should need to care about which gender we are at all. This has long been an area where government legal policy has been dictated by norms and the scientific knowledge of the time, and those have been shifting. The extent that the government should care about a person's sex at all seems to really coincide solely with how the government needs to treat individuals in a way that varies by gender.

For example, what if Shupe were to engage in illegal behavior and get arrested? Where does Shupe fit into a criminal justice system that segregates for the purpose of diminishing the chances (albeit poorly) for sexual predation? Would having "nonbinary" prison cells be the solution? That doesn't seem right, because the whole point of accepting the "nonbinary" concept is that gender means something different for each person. Would it result in nonbinary prisoners being isolated entirely? That would be absolutely terrible for them. Should nonbinary people decide for themselves whether to be placed in male or female prisons?

This is not to dismiss the possibility that this can all be solved, but there are some genuine concerns on how the legal system would deal with somebody who deviates from such an entrenched sorting system. But as a libertarian who believes that control over our own identity is crucial to respecting individual liberty, I support Shupe's right to tell the government Shupe doesn't identify as either sex. We tell the government who we are, not the other way around, so long as we aren't using our identities to commit crimes and frauds against others.

But then we get to private and social considerations and everything gets a little messier. Shupe prefers to be referred to as "they" or "their" as a personal pronoun, and the problem with that is not that Shupe is asking, but rather some are attempting to use the law to force others in the private world to use the pronouns they demand. I have stated previously that I object to turning language into "a field of metaphorical bear traps designed to trigger pain and punishment upon the unwary." In Oregon, a school district settled a legal case where a teacher accused coworkers of anti-transgender harassment. Like Shupe, this teacher preferred non-gendered pronouns, and part of the harassment claim was that others at the school refused to accommodate.

There's a serious problem here with compelled speech. Nonbinary people should feel free to request accommodation from others, but using the law to punish or fine people for not saying the word that you want them to say is inappropriate and unconstitutional compelled speech. This has nothing to do with whether or not transgender people have the right to control their own identity in the eyes of the government. Rather, this is whether they should be able to use the force of government to punish people who hold different views. They should not.

Advertisement

NEXT: federaldebt

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. So science be damned? Can I change myself into an eagle?

    1. Well if its gonna be like that, I want to be a dragon.

    2. You think the law has anything to do with science? This is about what it says on a piece of paper, not actual reality.

        1. Seriously. Everyone knows it’s a fruit.

    3. Anybody can earn 450dollar+ daily… You can earn from 8000-15000 a month or even more if you work as a full time job…It’s easy, just follow instructions on this page, read it carefully from start to finish… It’s a flexible job but a good eaning opportunity..
      Go to this site home tab for more detail… Go this Website========== http://www.earnmore9.com

    4. I identify as an attack helicopter. I want to carry hellfires.

  2. Why should government care what sex anyone is? Seems to me that it shouldn’t matter at all legally. I can’t see what purpose is served by having it on drivers licenses or any other official document.

    Can anyone think of any reason why the law should be concerned with gender or sex at all?

    1. Can anyone think of any reason why the law should be concerned with gender or sex at all?

      How will the government know who’s civil rights to violate in college rape tribunals?

      1. Exactly. See my comment below.

      2. I bet there are a lot of people in prison that would love for the prison system to stop segregating based on gender.

        1. OK, there is one possible reason. But there I think you could just be pragmatic. I don’t think someone identifying as a trans-woman would do much better in prison with a bunch of men than a regular woman.

        2. If you want to see if a trans activist is serious about their position, ask them if FTMs should be sent to men’s prison.

    2. It might eventually have something to do with who the cops would rather pull over to harass. Once the gestapo gets really good at tracking our every move, women are really going to be in trouble by loser cop predators.

      1. I guess I should have said “reason other than making it easier for the government to fuck with people”.

    3. How will we know if we are having a historical presidency?

      1. When Mx Shiny Unicorn makes the ballot, we’ll know.

    4. Can anyone think of any reason why the law should be concerned with gender or sex at all?

      Goodies are handed out to people based on sex.

      Or are you asking the rhetorical question from the libertarian perspective that they shouldn’t be doing that either?

      1. The latter, though not really rhetorical. I’m interested to know what people think. So far it seems like the answer is “no”.

        I could have phrased the question better. I’m thinking good reasons from a more libertarian perspective.

    5. Zeb|6.14.16 @ 3:17PM|#
      “Why should government care what sex anyone is?”

      And if we can get the same judge, how about getting the government to ignore racial determinants? Maybe that bitch Warren would have had to earn her position.
      Naah, asking too much…

      1. That would be nice too.

  3. Number of times the sex on my birth certificate has mattered: 1 (Selective Service registration)

    Outside of North Carolina state government, why does any give a fuck?

    1. Because #PronounLivesMatter !

    2. That’s what I’m saying. It would be great if people could legally change their sex legally just like you can your name. It would really throw a wrench into the whole identity politics machine if anyone could just decide what sex and race they want to be legally.

      1. Ireland has this but it’s an odd system that honestly creeps me out. You go begging to a bureaucracy- specifically, a bureaucrat who holds the power of your identity in his hands. Hx either grants or denies your application. If denied, you get one appeal. I also understand it can also be “revoked” at any time.

        In addition to that, there are all kinds of caveats and limitations– and there has to be a body of ‘evidence’ or ‘reasons’ put forth in your application. A lot of the western world calls this ‘progress’.

        1. In my fantasy scenario you can just change it because you feel like it, or even just to fuck with people.

          1. , or even just to fuck with people.

            But that’s just it, the instant people realize this can happen, the state will insert itself into the process to regulate it.

            1. Well, we’re probably stuck with that. Might as well amuse myself with other possibilities in the mean time.

        2. This entire article is pointing out that we have it. The exact process varies by state, but you have go begging to a Judge. The judge either grants or denies your request to change your birth certificate, and the standards of what “evidence” or “reasons” need to be supplied vary by state (and judge).

      2. “Legally”, you don’t have a race. You can choose to identify as/with a race, but there’s no compulsion to. That’s why it’s easy for someone that’s a little on the ambiguous side to, with the appropriate application of make-up and hair-styles, swap from being read as white to being read as black (see: the original “Welfare Queen”, that woman a few years back, and so-on)

        That said, I’m not sure how it would “throw a wrench” in anything. This notion that people are going to say they’re X, Y or Z just for some perceived benefit has always been a bogeyman, and nothing more.

    3. Charlotte City Council was first in giving a fuck, that was when North Carolina stepped in and gave a fuck

      1. I’m not saying anything about what the NC government did, only alluding to the fact that most of the country doesn’t live in NC and most of the people who do live in NC have no regular interaction with government bathrooms.

        1. The Charlotte ordinance would have applied to private businesses, including but not limited to bathrooms. The ordinance would also have applied to a business’s choice of customers, and its hiring practices.

    4. That is the main example that came to mind for me. Hopefully, Selective Service should go away soon enough. Meanwhile, it should apply to everyone instead of just men.

      But ignoring all that… does the dude in the story have to register? Does the answer to that question depend on when you start to transition (before or after 18). Does it depend on the extent of transformation? Is transformation required at all or would one not have to register simply because they don’t “feel” male?

      Am I turning into the Judge? How do I make this stop?

        1. Thanks. I’m better now.

          Or am I?

      1. Generally speaking, most judges won’t sign off on changing a birth certificate until the person has had surgery. Generally speaking, most doctors won’t do that surgery on a minor (though puberty blockers and hormones might be done earlier).

        So I would expect that transwomen would all register for the draft because, at the time they turned 18, they were probably all still men in the eyes of the law.

        The question of what would happen if the draft is put into effect is questionable. Currently the services are starting to talk about letting transmen and transwomen serve (currently transitioning will get you kicked out), so it’s possible that showing up when your card is called and you’re trans may be a “get out of service” card, or it may not. But if you want to try the “I shouldn’t be eligible for the draft” card, then a legal sex-change would probably be necessary regardless, and that generally requires a judge sign-off, so it depends on the individual judge though generally it does mean “surgery” and not just hormones.

        All of that said, this is arm-chair analysis as it hasn’t been tested. I honestly expect that it never will be tested as I think that, in the event of a draft, they’ll quickly do away with the sex discrimination.

    5. “Number of times the sex on my birth certificate has mattered: 1 (Selective Service registration)”

      Wait… I think I found a loophole…

  4. I’m convinced that “gender” is another one of those Progressive things that I will just never understand. Namely, when does sexual dimorphism turn into gender? Cause I think they’re confusing the two, although, I’ve never claimed to be a biologist.

    1. I think there is a reasonable distinction to be made between sex and gender. But it’s purely academic, or should be. Everyone is just whatever they are. People are too obsessed with categorizing things (and themselves). Just be what you are.

      1. Except the push seems to be for gender to override any acknowledgment of sex. Even in those areas where a person’s sex is relevant, like medical issues.

        1. This especially with the Tumblr crowd who love to rant about their doctors “oppressing” them.

        2. Yeah, I’m more talking about how I wish things were, not actual practical reality.

  5. All I can say to this development is… “Excellent”.

  6. The extent that the government should care about a person’s sex at all seems to really coincide solely with how the government needs to treat individuals in a way that varies by gender

    The only reason the govt should ever have to *identify* someone is if they want to ‘treat them differently’?

    So when police are given a warrant to arrest “Ashley Smith”, they don’t need to be informed of whether they’re male or female?

    We seem to think its important to list people’s hair color on drivers licenses. Yet it is far more mutable than one’s gender. I fail to see how biological identifying-characteristics are only required for government to “discrimate” between people.

    1. Go apply for your women-owned business loan and see how fast the government is going to care about your identity.

      1. I’m just tired of never getting free drinks on Ladies Night.

        1. That’s because you’re being arbitrarily sorted into the wrong social construct.

          1. Again? *sigh* Life sucks…

    2. There’s nitpicking and there’s just being an asshole. We are expected to read Trump’s mind when garbled bullshit falls out of his mouth, but plain reading Scott doesn’t let you get all outraged and pouty.

      1. There’s nitpicking and there’s just being an asshole.

        you think i was nitpicking, so you decide to be an asshole? i don’t get it.

        “basic identifying information” isn’t only used by govt to discriminate. Is it nickpicking to point that out?

        1. I fully support your right to be a sandy little butthole going out of your way to miss the point.

          1. going out of your way to miss the point.

            That doesn’t even make sense. If i needed to go out of my way, then i apparently got the point.

            instead i pointed out that the claim that “sex is only ever used to discriminate” is wrong.

            Do you have some actual comment on the substance, or is this just your toxic-shock-syndrome acting up again?

            1. No, you twisted Scott’s fairly easy to understand point back and forth until it turned into something you could whine about.

              “sex is only ever used to discriminate” is nowhere near what Scott said. The entire paragraph after it explains what Scott meant and nothing he mentions is either incorrect or supports how you took that sentence out of context so you could whine and moan about it.

              1. His paragraph after that sentence doesn’t “explain” it at all. its a series of hypothetical questions about ‘what to do with people after you’ve arrested them’.

                Simply being able to identify people isn’t only associated with “discrimination”.

                if he (or you) had such a retort to that point i assume you’d have quoted it or restated it by now.

                1. I’m sorry if trannies are making it difficult for cops to do their “jobs.” Boo-fucking-hoo.

                  1. Yeah, that’s not at all what anyone said, but straw-man away.

                    I think it would be perfectly fine to create an “other” category if the Trans-feeling don’t like being pigeonholed. Let M & F stay, but grant the snowflakes their own magical Prince-like symbol of gender-fluidity.

                    However the argument presented, which i was responding to, was that ANY gender-identification is solely used for discrimination. which is wrong.

                    which i apparently need to repeat over and over.

                    1. Don’t worry G… I got what you are saying. I have this discussion with my predominantly Hispanic students all the time. The issue then is should a news cast etc mention race or just let the cops figure it out in the one instance where they might actually be doing their actual job (apprehending actual peeps to execuse [no pun intended] justice/provide actual security for the public.

                      We can argue how good/bad cops are, sure. But the question raised certainly seems to assume actors behaving accordingly and given that… is there a use for ID with regards to the state. And there, at least theoretically, is. That does not mean that we should all jump to defend said usage… just that it is something to consider when discussing the state and ID.

                    2. Don’t worry G… I got what you are saying. I have this discussion with my predominantly Hispanic students all the time. The issue then is should a news cast etc mention race or just let the cops figure it out in the one instance where they might actually be doing their actual job (apprehending actual peeps to execuse [no pun intended] justice/provide actual security for the public.

                      We can argue how good/bad cops are, sure. But the question raised certainly seems to assume actors behaving accordingly and given that… is there a use for ID with regards to the state. And there, at least theoretically, is. That does not mean that we should all jump to defend said usage… just that it is something to consider when discussing the state and ID.

          2. Hey… HEY! There’s NO reason for this. You two shake hands. Don’t make me choose between you. No really, don’t make me choose.

            1. Why would anyone ever choose Sugarfree unless they had to?

              1. Fuck off, Tulpa.

                1. SugarFree|6.14.16 @ 3:38PM|#

                  I fully support your right to be a sandy little butthole

                  1. No, seriously, fuck off, Tulpa. No one is fooled and no one wants to let you shit in our yard any longer.

                    1. “our yard ”

                      Lol, what an entitled little shit you are.

                    2. Yes, but not the sort of entitled little shit that has such a garbage reputation that I have to change my handle constantly in order to trick people into interacting with me.

                    3. “Yes”

                      We know.

                      Its why no one would ever choose Sugarfree.

                    4. I’ve had the same handle since 2007, Tulpa. Because I’m not a crusty lip of shit on the underside of the toilet seat like you are.

                    5. An yet still, no one would choose you.

                    6. Someone smack the side of the cabinet. The record is skipping.

    3. When a warrant is issued, do they look up the subject’s sex on their birth certificate? No, they rely on a description of the person. Not having sex on a drivers license or whatever won’t make it impossible for people to use sex as one identifying characteristic of a person since it’s obvious in 99.9% of cases.

      1. I’m not sure what your point is other that “making people harder to identify is a good idea because = feels”

        1. As if dykes aren’t already hard to identify.

        2. I think the point is actually “making people harder to identify is a good idea because = we need to throw as many monkey wrenches as we can into the machinery of an increasingly turn-key totalitarian police state”

          1. I think the point is actually “making people harder to identify is a good idea because = we need to throw as many monkey wrenches as we can into the machinery of an increasingly turn-key totalitarian police state”

            That’s a decent argument, even if no one actually said anything like that.

            The response zeb seemed to have was that it was not “making people harder to identify” at all… really (except for the theoretical .1%)

            Acknowledging that the effect is to simply make identification harder was pretty much my observation.

          2. That is my broader point. But point of the specific response to Gilmore was that not having officially recognized sexes doesn’t make it harder to identify a person in the vast majority of cases.

            Having sex on your license doesn’t make you or your sex easier to identify. People have eyes and can almost always tell without it being officially registered.

            1. And why is our fucking jobs to make their jobs easier?

              1. ^This is said in agreement with what you and others are saying.

              2. I think there should probably be a lot fewer things in life that “require ID”

                that said, if you’re going to have ID documents at all, its in everyone’s best interests that they be accurate and usable, harder to misrepresent, etc.

        3. More that making the job of the police slightly easier in some cases isn’t good enough reason to officially register everyone’s sex.

          Your point about sex being used for something other than discrimination is valid enough.

          1. Your point about sex being used for something other than discrimination is valid enough.

            “and lo, there was much rejoicing and celebration among the people.”

            1. I’m not sure that the people are all that concerned with my opinion of your comments.

              1. He’ll take whatever crumb of validation you offer up.

                1. No i just thought it was funny that it requires pulling teeth to get people to acknowledge the obvious.

      2. Lots of ships passing in the night it seems.

        Gilmore= there is a legit use of government, at least in theory, in which the use of ID would not inhibit anyone’s rights but also promote the successful completion of task.

        Zeb= the same goal can be accomplished by simply stating, per the witnesses, the defining characteristics of the perp. Doing this achieves the same goal without the need to record anyone’s ID for the state.

        Muhright?

    4. And if you’re looking for “Ashley Smith” who is female according to “her” driver’s license, that’s going to make it harder to actually find “her” if “she” has been living as Aaron Smith for five years, had a double mastectomy and hysterectomy, and is currently looking like a Duck Dynasty extra with a beard down to “her” navel.

      Or to put it another way: if you’re looking for Laverne Cox, which sex identifier is going to be more of a help: male or female.

  7. This is not to dismiss the possibility that this can all be solved, but there are some genuine concerns on how the legal system would deal with somebody who deviates from such an entrenched sorting system.

    Millions of years of evolution has a way of doing that.

  8. Shupe prefers to be referred to as “they” or “their” as a personal pronoun, and the problem with that is not that Shupe is asking, but rather some are attempting to use the law to force others in the private world to use the pronouns they demand. I have stated previously that I object to turning language into “a field of metaphorical bear traps designed to trigger pain and punishment upon the unwary.”

    See? Scott is admitting that he wants to use the government to force people to call them women wherecome they still got dicks!

  9. This has long been an area where government legal policy has been dictated by norms and the scientific knowledge of the time, and those have been shifting.

    Biology/physiology has been shifting on this subject? No, what’s happening is these loonies go out of their way to deny science when it’s not a subject they Fucking Love. And now the cult of post-genderism has expanded and infected public institutions.

    1. I am not disagreeing but can you refer to some of this actual science that you seem to indicate defines ID despite our wishes?

      That really is an honest request. A good friend of mine is a psychologist and has expressed some somewhat similar attitudes as you.

  10. As long as I’m not forced to play their mind games, I don’t care what people call themselves. But as I already told my daughter, “no I’m not going to call you they”.

    The freedom to be free doesn’t include the freedom to make other’s freedom conditional.

    1. What about Xe?

      1. Fuck that, not a real word and I’m not going to help it become one.

    2. I don’t disagree, but I wonder what happens when every interaction turns into a battle over what terms to use.

      1. As far as I’m concerned, it won’t. I’m not going to haggle with people over what words mean. And I’m also not going to be concerned if I use words that hurt their feelings. There is a limit to the compromises I’m willing to make to converse with people.

        1. Again, I don’t disagree, but I don’t own my own business and I work with a lot of people, the state of the law may make my life very difficult if I step out of line and use the wrong term, even accidentally.

          A well placed tantrum by the right person, and it becomes a fiasco.

          I don’t have an answer for that.

          1. Then don’t converse with people you’re unsure of. If you can’t avoid that, minimize the conversation. If it’s work related, limit the language to work. It really isn’t as hard as you’re making it out to be.

            1. Not really possible. Especially since even a misplaced pronoun can set someone off.

              1. As I said, you’re making it harder than it needs to be.

  11. The desire to put all this attention on yourself is so completely alien to me. Even if one doesn’t feel “gendered” I would think a normal person would just pick one and fit in somehow.

    1. You can’t be a special snowflake if you’re fitting in. I’ve said this before, people want so bad to be part of a group that they do weird things to fit the group. Unfortunately they then realize that they’re just another number in a faceless group and develop something even weirder to restore their specialness but not so much weirder that they get kicked out of the group.

      That’s my theory and I’m sticking with it until a better one comes along.

    2. Everyone MUST accommodate me. And further, everyone MUST fully participate in my identity.

    3. There’s a shorter word for what how you want people to behave. It’s “closeted”.

  12. One of those guys who ‘really is straight, but is kinda looking’ and really not liking what he finds of himself?

    “Orlando shooter ‘was a REGULAR at gay club he attacked & contacted men on gay dating app’ ”
    http://www.express.co.uk/news/…..lar-US-Gay

    Oh, and he was Muslim, and he used guns instead of a bomb, so let’s outlaw Muslims and guns…

  13. SAY MY NAME, BITCH. AND GET THAT CAKE IN THE FUCKING OVEN.

    1. Well, excuuuse xe!

  14. I guess this is my problem with the WHOLE gender identity thing. Our social systems seemed to be dealing with them just fine. But recently… very recently, a group of people somewhere said that our social systems were FAILING to deal with this situation in an acceptable way, so as expected, the government has now decided to stick its tow into the mess.

    We ARE going to get laws, we ARE going to start issuing Pink Stars of David because we’re going to DEMAND them. (forgive the Dunphy-style writing)

    Previously, every property owner in the land seemed to have a bathroom system worked out that satisfied 99.998% of the population, until we were alerted to a crisis that only the law could sort out. Our social systems were essentially having a “market failure” and only government could tip the scales in the proper egalitarian way.

    As I’ve said since the beginning of this and others have pointed out right here in this very thread, the entire gender-fluidity thing has the potential to blow up the entire identity politics industry from within itself. But make no mistake, despite its outward stupidity, the people who make their living in identity politics are going to figure this out, and they’ll never let that happen. So we’re simply going to get MORE protected categories.

    1. As I’ve said since the beginning of this and others have pointed out right here in this very thread, the entire gender-fluidity thing has the potential to blow up the entire identity politics industry from within itself.

      The TERF radical feminists have already figured this out, but they were already considered a little kooky anyway (because they were explicitly segregationist) and were easy to expel.

      Although, most people outside their game should get a laugh from the idea that a man in a dress is afforded more victim points than a woman.

      1. a man in a dress is afforded more victim points than a woman.

        TQBLG FTW

      2. The TERF radical feminists

        Yes, definitely. They were hip very early on to someone riding on their victim coattails. And if you’re going to recognize victim coattails and all the hierarchy that comes with them, I can see their grievance.

        Luckily, I don’t accept the victim hierarchy, so I dismiss the TERFs out of hand, because the TERFs are merely trying to protect their TURF. But to their credit, they definitely figured out that if you could just download feminism free from the internet, why would anyone buy it from feminists?

    2. You should know that gendered restrooms started becoming a thing in America during the 1800s as a way to restrict and control women outside of the home. Also, mandated by law. So it’s not that “every propety owner in the land seemed to have a bathroom system worked out […]”, it’s that a couple of sexist busy-bodies mandated a system that reinforced their sexist stereotypes, and a few generations later it’s so internalized people just assume it’s the natural order.

      It’s the same reason most men of my generation, regardless of their religion, are circumcised. Some busy-body in the 1800s convinced parents that if they circumcised their baby boys they would masturbate less, and from there it became an expected thing completely divorced from the original reason it was done.

  15. “it”

    1. Someone recently called you Eddie and I had a doubt. I no longer have a doubt, thanks.

      1. Finally caught a whiff of shit, eh?

      2. Didn’t he initially have (Eddie) in his new handle?

        1. Yes, I announced it last week.

  16. The idea that freedom is dependent on having absolute control over one’s identity is absurd. There are plenty of aspects of your identity that you have no or limited control over by the nature of reality. Claiming a right to identity that denies what you are at a basic level has no merit. Which is why so many advocates of this want to use the law force compliance with their self-image. There will always be that temptation because you are not what you are not.

    Some people really need to internalize the Serenity Prayer.

  17. I wish we were 5% as fiscally conservative as we are socially liberal.

    1. So much this.

      When push comes to shove, people who identify as socially liberal and fiscally conservative always seem to be socially liberal, no matter how much it costs other people.

  18. … the scientific knowledge of the time, and those have been shifting.

    No, the scientific knowledge hasn’t been shifting. He was born a man. Scientifically, he’s a man.

  19. There just aren’t enough face-palms in the world.

  20. Does anyone remember that article by a UK trans-person who was complaining about the forms they had to fill out for the NHS? and then freaked out when one of the doctors insisted on using terminology associated with their biological (but not identified) gender?

    I feel like it would be a relevant link.

  21. Gender is very important on a job application. Else how would an employer know which applicants he can offer only 77% of the salary to?

    1. Easy, look for the space heater under the desk.

      *ducks*

      1. Women get space heaters, men get fans. I almost got my pants set on fire once because I didn’t see a woman’s heater until I bumped my leg into it.

    2. The one with the biggest tits?

      1. You can teach them to type but not to grow tits.

  22. How about we classify people as ‘XX’ or ‘XY’ at birth and after that anyone can be whatever the fuck they want to be.

    1. Or XXY for the … gifted?

      1. Forgot about that one, but sure.

  23. Should nonbinary people decide for themselves whether to be placed in male or female prisons?

    Depends. Are you OK with thousands of male prisoners declaring themselves nonbinary so they can rape a female roommate?

    1. If I had to go to prison I would definately give the identify as a woman thing a shot. Why wouldn’t you?

      1. I’m not sure how much choice you would even have, JB.

  24. Even in the simple case (not a prison or dormitory or shower) this assumes knowledge that other people do not have. Even among coworkers, people do not know the marital status of very person, and thus can’t say for sure if Miss or Mrs (with Ms sounding sort of like both being a convenient cover for lack of knowledge). This is even worse because the assumption everyone would make would be potentially wrong, especially if they choose some weird thing like Xe or “they”. “Hello, I would like you to meet Xe Smith”. but how would you know their special status in a large university or company?
    In a dormitory this person is demanding to be able to be room mates with either sex, regardless of how awkward that is.

    1. I like that you pointed out that we’ve already tackled this issue with Miss/Mrs/Ms.

      What do you do? You guess, and then if they correct you say “sorry” and then use the requested term. And insisting to use the incorrect term after you know the correct term? Rude.

      Why do people act like this is more complicated then that? I have never heard of a transperson getting upset because someone used the wrong pronoun to start with. What I hear is the transperson getting upset because after being corrected a person insists on using the wrong term.

  25. Someone asked why the government should care what sex you are. Well, there’s a whole industry based around Title IX, making sure the wrestling team gets cut for example. Women in the workplace can more easily sue for sexual harassment. There are women’s shelters but not men’s shelters. Mothers are more likely to get custody. there are scholarships for women only.
    Is any of that “fair” or “right”? Who knows, but there are a million distinctions based on sex.

    1. There are plenty of men’s shelters. If you’re going to highlight how men get the short stick, you should at least be accurate.

  26. “…but rather some are attempting to use the law to force others in the private world to use the pronouns they demand.”

    And yet there are those on the left who sneer at those who want proper grammar used. So why cannot I use the ‘wrong’ pronoun?

  27. Shupe’s request raises the question of how much government should need to care about which gender we are at all.

    Good point. How about the government disregards people’s “genders” and only looks at their biological sex. Sounds like that’s a rule that should be a lot simpler and easier to administer.

    1. Harder to administer, not easier to administer.

      Someone’s gender can normally be gleaned from their presentation. Someone’s sex can only be gleaned by a medical exam. That the two align in most cases just means you get lucky.

  28. Remember when sex and gender were two different things?

    Neither does anyone else.

  29. Shupe: “Hello, I’m Shupe, my pronouns are ‘they and their’.”

    Me: “What?”

    Shupe: “My proniouns are ‘they’ and ‘their’. ”

    Me: “Okay, and why should I care about your ‘pronouns’?”

    Shupe: “You don’t care about pronouns!?!–are you a transphobe?!!!”

    Me: “Gods above….. Look, in this conversation we’re having, I don’t need your damned ‘pronouns’.”

    Shupe: “Oh! Transphobia!”

    Me: ” No. I’m gonna refer to you, when speaking to you, as ‘you’. I may use ‘we’ if I’m talking about something ‘we’re’ doing together–I might even use your name to refer to you–though ‘Shupe’ sounds like you stole your name from a retarded rodeo clown. Get it?

    Shupe: “Sputter.”

    Me: ” Good. Remember, no one needs your ‘pronouns’, they’re talking to you, not writing a book about you.”

  30. I’ve made $76,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student.I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..

    ??????? http://www.selfcash10.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.