Jump to content

Shienvien

Members
  • Posts

    3,266
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Shienvien

  1. A man may wear whatever a man pleases, no? :-P @oddinomaly: Tea? I have tea. And coffee. Whichever you'd prefer.
  2. As I see it, it is a matter that has nothing to do with the sex/gender of people. If the person - any person - who approaches you doesn't back down after being repeatedly told that sorrily you're not interested, then it becomes sexual harassment. It does not matter whether it is a female woman whom he is not interested in persistently approaching him even after he has said no, or a trans woman that he is not interested in persistently approaching him even after he has said no, or a gay man whom he is not interested in persistently approaching him even after he has said no, or some other combination of gender and sex whom he is not interested in persistently approaching him even after he has said no - if they refuse to take a no it is sexual harassment. It is the same situation. Not interested is not interested is not interested is not interested. If a person you're not interested in continues to make advances on you, it is not "phobic" to tell them to back down, and report them if they won't listen, regardless of their sex and gender. I'd say that if she persists, definitely report her. He can try telling her one more time that it has nothing to do who she is, but that he simply does not have feelings towards her, but at this point - from the impression I'm getting - it wouldn't probably make a difference...
  3. I am not even trans/nonbinary, and I support ditching separate toilet rooms. Most of the time, people are doing their business in cabins, and only the sinks and mirrors are shared, anyway (males feeling too uncomfortable to use "open" urinals seems to be fairly common, too). Shared toilets are somewhat common around here, and surprisingly enough, no issues. I've also noticed that in many smaller places, people simply ignore the signs even when they are present and simply use the closest vacant one, and otherwise just occasionally accidentally use the wrong one - at least one circumstantial acquaintance of mine managed to use two different bathrooms designated for the opposite sex out of sheer absentmindedness in the same day...
  4. That is just terrible, and I definitely don't agree with it. By all rights, something like this - discriminating people based on personal beliefs when their lives and/or health are in danger should be illegal on national level. (Meaning that if someone still refuses to treat people and doesn't fetch anyone who agrees to it, either, then it is professional malpractice and - should someone indeed die from it - manslaughter due to neglect.) - The medicine in the US is a fair bit messed up on those grounds. The bloated costs, questionable healthcare which still does not quite work, and the support of discrimination... I've previously heard that discrimination based on ethnicity is allowed, too. As a person who has received a fair bit of harassment due to being, eh, "astereotypical" (mostly from foreigners and my mother's side of family), I personally tend to frown on "masculine" and "feminine" as describing anything but appearance, too. (In the rare occasions I've used it to explain stereotype mismatch I've always put it in quotation marks.)
  5. It is the exact same as the Gender: Sex: which I have been advocating. The rest is just semantics. Likewise, if gender is more socially important (which just might be; I maintain it is commonly not people's business what sex someone else is), why just not list gender on most documents, instead of sex? Sock, you keep throwing "transphobic" and "bigoted" around at every corner - which I don't agree with, the same as I actually find your approach to the matter more harmful and, shall we say, aggravating? It is hyperbolic - downright incorrect use of the terms, even -, offensive and alienating. Words having biological definitions isn't "bigotry". Saying that humans are animals isn't "bigotry", either. You may not agree to my specific approach to the matter - by all means, even the trans people speaking up have been on both sides -, and in parts I'd like to indeed take the distinction even farther than most, but it does not make it right to attack people and put them down by essentially calling them a hate group. You're furthermore hurting the minority you're trying to "protect" by essentially attacking what they are, by now at least twice when the speaker *oneself* is trans - being harmful to the people you're speaking in the name of is a statement I don't use lightly, but sometimes I feel I have to. I think the last time I brought something like this up was in regards to some of the more radical branches of people who call themselves feminist. Trans people have very well defined very physical reasons for being trans. It is not *just* what they identify as - it is something that can be with very high accuracy identified with a scan, without even asking them. Both gender and sex are equally "real". I am not "transphobic", nor is any other whose standpoint simply differs from yours as long as they recognize that trans people exist and have nothing personal against them. I admit, at some points I've difficulties understanding where you're coming from, since you're very heavily conflicting in what you say, often by stating that something is wrong, and then saying the exact same thing in different words and calling it correct. It is something that has, especially in this thread, been bothering me for a fairly wrong time; it is not a personal attack, but simple request from the "opposite" side to please refrain from attacking the people you're debating with. Thank you.
  6. By the secondary physical characteristics, it looks more like a male to me. "Obviously a man?" No. From all that I know, it might be a woman. Woman or man, they are allowed to wear and look like whatever they want. As a sidenote, I wore pants when I graduated highschool, and I'm a woman. Yes, pants are perfectly OK for women to wear to prom, and it doesn't make them the slightest bit "strange". If my parents/school allowed, I'd also have worn the guys' uniforms those years when I was in a school that had uniforms, too, since I positively hated the skirts/dresses girls had to wear.
  7. I ain't gonna call you anything; you are just you are just Switch. Calling people words is not polite. Edit: Just out of curiosity, I assume you don't have any issues with being referred to as a guy/man? (In the end, I was just clarifying that I personally am using these words this way to make what I was saying easier to understand as intended for people who have not been following the thread...)
  8. No. That is an assertion you make, and not at all what I have been saying. More specifically, I made this statement: "saying sex = things in your abdomen and between your legs and gender = brain wiring is oversimplification, obviously, but it is mostly serviceable" Both sex and gender are physical and equally real. Gender roles are social construct (and I tell you, I've taken plenty of flak for that in the past, which is partly why I always point it out when the topic comes up), gender itself is not. You can literally just examine a person's brain and you'll know with almost absolute certainty whether they are (that is, identify as) trans without asking first. There was a rather in-depth article linked on it back when one of our trans men was trying to explain it, too...
  9. I'd personally go even further and rift sex even further - and indeed go as far as to make it so that male/female do not refer to gender at all. (With man/woman always referring to gender, and never sex in return.) It feels very odd to me to refer to a human being as female/male outside of very specific circumstances, anyway, and I've heard other people mention that "males" and "females" in reference to people makes them think of seeing humans as cattle. But yes, I agree and have always said - a random person on the street has *no* business knowing what is or isn't or has been or will be between your legs. @Switch: Which brings the question "what is a mab?". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Mab ...Huh.
  10. I maintain that it is not, and that sex and gender are indeed different things (saying sex = things in your abdomen and between your legs and gender = brain wiring is oversimplification, obviously, but it is mostly serviceable); I am aware that our standpoints differ drastically in those matter. Earlier in the thread there have been both several trans people who agree with me and at least two trans people (including Switch) who agree with you. I personally find your viewpoint at least as harmful. Designated woman at birth, DWAB, if you want to use an acronym? I still don't like acronyms for humans, but I'd have no technical issues with it.
  11. And here I'd add that gender norms by no means define your gender. By almost any stereotype out there, I "should" consider myself a man, but here I am, both a female by sex* and a woman... (I only use female/male/intersex for sex, and never gender. Gender has other equivalent terms that can be used to avoid confusion.)
  12. Gender and sex are different thing. Sex is male, female, and rarely intersex (in humans). Gender can be many things.
  13. It is strange for me, but it doesn't really cause motion-sickness with me. What does aggravate my eyes, though, is how BRIGHT the lefthand side of the image is. Especially in a darker room. I adblocked the background image for this reason (my browser's default background color is black) - you could try doing the same if the image causes you motion-sickness?
  14. Now when I think of it, I liked the old, bolder kind of font for category titles and such, too. The new font is very ... flimsy? Huh, didn't look at lineages yet... At least on my screen, the images look really, really, really tiny compared to the boxes they are in. The margin above the image is easily 2/3 of the height of the image, for instance...
  15. Background image stays static when you scroll down on the page and foreground things move. Some people get seasickness from it. Edit: Hmm... You can adblock the background image. Might be a temporary fix for people who need it. (I think I am keeping it this way, just to get rid of the slightly irritating brightness of the background's lefthand side - my browser's default color for backgrounds has been set to black.)
  16. I agree with this. Seeing a static image while scrolling is a bit strange, and the navigation links being fairly small and in the upper right corner, over a busy background is a bit inconvenient. Switching between these links is one of the most frequent actions I do, and the change made it a fair bit more inconvenient. I don't mind the background being art (although the left side is a bit *too* bright for me - I'd rather the entire background image be a nice friendly unobtrusive dark color) as the not-scrolling is a bit strange, but I think I'd get used to it, but I really do miss the old navigation links being large and handy at the top of the scroll.
  17. Reminds me of what a Buddhist I know answered when a couple of door-by-door people decided to rather persistently tell him how only their religion will get God in his heart: "I have a god in my heart. I ave many gods in me. There is one in my throat, too." (There is one meditation excercise he did which involves "making" gods in one's body; Buddhists don't worship deities.) I sometimes like asking people what they believe and letting me tell how their beliefs work. It can be interesting. Not so fond of people who force their beliefs onto others, though.
  18. ...He is dead? That is sad news indeed, and undexpected, at least to me. I had read about the stroke a while back, but there are many people who have lived decades after one, and he was not all that old ... my own grandparents used to go to mountain-hiking when they were already past 70. But... yeah. I practically grew up with his books and sense of humor. His books were also one of the very few things my mother and I actually shared fondness for (as otherwise I only had things in common with my father, and the relations between me and my mother were tense, to say the least). I recall several occasions when I and my mother actually contemplated writing him a letter or letter or email... But alas, now neither of us ever can. I guess so it always is - I will regret things I did not do, but very rarely things I did do. There is often just a small frame of time for doing things, and if you don't do them then, the opportunity will be forever lost. There is no thing more irreversible than death. Only writings and memories remain.
  19. I feel for you, catstaff. It is always hard losing a pet. *hugs*
  20. By now, I am too tired of this thing popping up everywhere to be amused by the fact that they decided to start making the dress in gold and white due to a pointless internet argument...
  21. Camera flash. Although, to be fair, there doesn't appear to be actual light behind the dress? It might just be light background that is even more horrifically off-color than the dress itself. (I've succeeded in taking a picture of a white thing in sunlight and it ending up looking like a floodlight...)
  22. Ironically, it is vice versa for many - the brighter monitor is more likely to look blue/black and the darker one white/gold. ...Since the lighter background makes your brain think that the dress is already under bright light and doesn't feel the need to adjust the colors lighter. (Which I can testify - it looks blue/black on my brighter laptop screen and white/gold on my literally minimal-brightness PC screen.) Eh, and gamma doesn't tell anything about your monitor's quality - that's more resolution and color distinction matter. For some people, dim screens are better since ouch, who on earth thought neon text on white was a good idea!? It is only a matter of this one photo - and the really, really bad camera it was taken with. In real life and other pictures, the dress looks "normal" blue/black.
  23. It is "actually" (as in, if you color-pick off the image, not in real life; in real life it *is* black) some sort of murky darker slightly orangeish brown. It's mostly just that fabric is generally a bit reflective, so that if you shine yellow/orange light on black, it often appears to be brownish - whether the fabric of the lace looks black to you depends on whether or not your brain interprets it as just that happening. (My personal impression would thus perhaps be more aptly "black with bronze sheen".)
  24. Dragon Cave forums was the first place for me... But then again, I generally avoid Tumblr and related sites.
  25. @Fuzzbucket: No. There is another picture of the dress on the first page - and that is as blue and black as blue and black goes. It is just terrible cell phone camera that made the weird colors* appear. (*All light-colored cars are gray at night, 'kay? And if a camera thinks it is darker than it is, it will auto-adjust to brighten everything...)