(01-17-2018 12:18 PM)gdunn Wrote:  

(01-17-2018 12:14 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(01-17-2018 12:06 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  But that person has to understand that insisting that they be referred to in a certain way is offensive to others, particularly when that way is contrary to what is anatomically and scientifically accurate. Uprooting cultural norms because, "Ooh, I'm offended," is not necessarily a sensible way to go.

I could insist that you refer to me as the king of England, and profess to be offended if you don't. That does not make me king of England, but it very well may make me nuttier than a fruitcake.

The difference is that you're clearly not the King of England. There's no medical research to back up that claim. Medical science has overwhelmingly agreed that gender and sex are two discrete concepts. For most people, gender and sex align. For some, they don't. Some people get sexual organs that don't align with their gender. Science doesn't know the reason why, but its clear that its not a mental illness, nor is it dangerous to anyone else.

You're also smart enough to know that people don't change genders every day of the week. Or that people don't change genders to assault people in ladies rooms.

Since no one in here is really referring to the prospect of having sex with Chelsea Manning, I think that the pronouns used might be most appropriately used following her gender, which is female.

Chelsea has a gender, which is female.

Wrong. Birth certificate says male. Manning identifies as a male. Read the link my friend.