[Discussion] Stripping Lord Poe of his senatorial position.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I did not initially recuse myself because the thread was open for Wayne to answer--that is, I had expected that it would evolve into a debate between the two of us which would then be judged, which I wanted in the Senate to try and keep it cool, so to speak.

I'll further add that Mike explicitly told me it was alright to post it and see what others think of the matter, though he would recuse himself on account of his long history with Wayne, so insomuch as it may have been nominally improper for me to be the one to raise the issue, I was also given explicit leave to do so by the highest authority of this board. As for the result, that is now none of my business, but in terms of initiating it, I had all the approval possible.

[The Yosemite Bear]

Well as a former ASVSer/USEnettizen the Defining characteristic of wayne poe has always been that he is a crude and insensitive individual. prone to use ASSHAT and Bitch like others use "Hello" and "Goodmorning". He started "Crack Smoking Donkey Fucker" for crying out loud. He's posted video of Glen Danzig getting beaten up at heavy metal awards, he's friends with Kevin Smith, and he's just pretty much an internet Ogre as apposed to a troll.

edit 2

the bigger point is that after years of fighting Boyd, Timmy, G2000/Darkstar/Rob Anderson, Elim and the like, he tends to lash out with very hurtful words to those who appose him, in almost any degree. Purhaps it's fatigue, Purhaps it's Niezche comming true (you know the line about hunting monsters)

edit 3
his comments about prop 8 were pretty much identicle to his comments about Bush getting elected in 2000, the electorial vote's been counted stop whinning about it.

[CmdrWilkens]

On a procedural level we really don't have anything other than general custom holding anyone back. While I'm all for rules and bureacracy I don't pretend to have any that we didn't create. The idea of recusal is solely at the discretion of the Senator in quesiton because we haven't created a standard for it (nor do I think we should). That being said even if we grant recusal I the thread in quesiton and the action of individuals involved would likely have come to the Senate's attention.

From an action perspective

A) There are an awful lot of recriminations that are going to come out of that thread and it was just a shitstorm waiting to happen (perhaps in a much more relevant way than how the N&P cleanup resulted in a shitstorm). I won't claim any hold over the mods but I think the whole thing needs to be locked down before folks make more of an ass of themselves. I couldn't get past 2-3 pages and I've got a pretty decent tolerance for asshatery.

B) I would suggest at a minimum that we give the incident a few days to a week before taking any action in terms of either a call to vote or punishments other than what the forum mods or senior staff deem fit to hand out. This is the kind of thing where over-reaction is FAR too easy. In many ways the thread itself is one gigantic post-election pile of over-reaction and if its serves as a reminder that we ought to be a bit more deliberate in our actions then I support holding off


That being said there is no SPECIFIC procedure for disbarring a Senator. That being said with my non-existent Whip powers I hereby decree that:

1) Removal from the Senate for CAUSE shall be a Category A vote (under the guise of Senate Rules) subject to all the requirements contained within
2) Any such vote had best follow proper proedures [ 3.C.I thru 3.E.III ]

on a seperate (but related) note
3) Removal from the Senate BY REQUEST may be done by the member wishing to leave. Simply PM the Whip AND Chancellor, indicate the desire to be removed permanently from the rolls. (Make sure you want to leave permanently and not be placed on "Inactive" status)

[Edi]

Having been away from the board and busy with a lot of stuff, I just now got to read that trainwreck in its entirety. Most of the shitstorm seems to have calmed down on its own, but whether because some of the participants left or for some other reason, I don't know. It's even got some decent discussion going on toward the tail end, so I'm not inclined to lock it despite the bullshit in the early pages. That thread has found a new home in the HoS, though.

As far as bannings, I think those would be going overboard. Especially given that the initial suggestion came from the Duchess, who had a conflict of interest in making it. But that mess sure as hell should have been HoSed much earlier. Any repeat of similar language toward the LGBT people here deserves some really harsh measures, in my opinion. The thing is, people have been banned from the board for using the pejorative term "faggot" just once, though in that case it was used to provoke and the poster had a history of bullshit that had raised flags with the moderators in the past before that incident.

Speaking personally, this incident is a similar flag for me.

[Patrick Degan]

Hmm...

I have read through that trainwreck of a thread. While Lord Poe has demonstrated himself as a complete asshole in the tenor of his insults towards Duchess, and while there seem to be no actual rules which outline grounds for removal from the Senate, I must concur with the opinion of my learned colleague Publius that expulsion should be a matter of cause i.e. said member having been the subject of disciplinary action over a violation of board rules.

[Knife]

Hmm...

I have read through that trainwreck of a thread. While Lord Poe has demonstrated himself as a complete asshole in the tenor of his insults towards Duchess, and while there seem to be no actual rules which outline grounds for removal from the Senate, I must concur with the opinion of my learned colleague Publius that expulsion should be a matter of cause i.e. said member having been the subject of disciplinary action over a violation of board rules.

As Publius and yourself are infinately more well spoken that I, I wish to latch on to your great words. I did say at the start I'm not sure where to fall on this.

[Simplicius]

Since a place in the Senate is meant to acknowledge a user's contributions to the forum and status as an upstanding poster, I think grounds for removal need not be limited to actionable rules violations. If the quality of a Senator's posts could be determined to have consistently degenerated to a level that would prevent them ever being considered for Senatorship were they not already a member, it would not be unreasonable for them to be removed. Given this subjective criterion, though, it would be best if fellow Senators refrained from opining on the suitability or lack thereof of any Senator for expulsion.

[Ender]

I've been in contact with Wayne, and this thread is now null. He is apparently requesting that Mike close his account. He sends his appreciation to everyone who has helped him with the making of videos and web pages over the years, but he has been increasingly repulsed by the board's culture as time went on. Hence why he has been increasingly withdrawn from the boards for the past 18-24 months or so. He feels that the thread in question was the last straw, as it represented most of the asinine behavior we were complaining about dominating in N&P now spilling over. He says he still stands by everything he said up to and including the insults to Marina. And that's the final word.


I haven't finished reading the thread (or the Robert Treader one) yet - every time I start I end up getting disgusted with it all and stop. And without commenting on the topic or the specific actions of individuals in it, I have to agree with his overall assessment that that nonsense was representative of the worst of the board's culture. I'm certain a few people are going to be congratulating themselves for "running him off" or deriding Wayne for leaving that "they won", but let me assure you that there were absolutely no winners there. That was the ugly, hateful, negative side of this place brought to the fore, and everyone who was involved is a lesser person for sinking to that level. For those who think it was justified by what one side said to the other, no. That was beneath you. There is the "no-holds-barred" style of debating this place is known for, and then there is whatever level of muck that thread was. Frankly I'd like to see everyone who took part in that fracas reprimanded in some fashion.

[LadyTevar]

A comment from another who was debating in that thread:

Since I was the one that started the thread in question, who Poe initially started raging against, who initially raged back and who is up for censure on the subject I figured I would submit this for the Senate's consideration.

The OP was posted on the night of the 30th of October. It went for a couple of days with not much of a response and no one was offended by, what was basically an emotional rant in which I expressed my feelings on the prop and it's supporters.

Then Poe entered the thread. The first thing he did was begin with "You're a fucking idiot", which laid the initial groundwork for the rest of the thread. He did not ask an intelligent question, pose an alternative decision I might have followed instead of what I had done in the situation, nothing constructive or intelligent. Not that that is required on this board by any means, but I am pointing out that this is one of the people that you, as a group, have elevated to a position that is supposedly higher, deserving of more respect and having greater debating skills than the rest of the board members.

He then went on to complain that the people had a right to protest, insinuating that I don't think they had the right to do, which was something I never questioned or challenged. Then Wayne Poe appeared to be mad because I cussed at them and purposely tried to offend them. I'm sure you can see the irony there.

I responded and answered all the points he made. Then in his response to mine, he accused me, falsely, of contributing to violence, then of outright lying and making the entire situation up to curry favor with the board. Now those of you, as well as the other board members, that know my posting history know that I certainly do not try to curry favor or anything of that sort with the people on this board. I speak my mind and that is that. I stay out of issues I don't understand, don't concern me or that I have no interest in. I take issue with being called a liar, as I do not tolerate them in my life. So here is another claim at this point that Poe has made that should be required to be supported or backed up, which of course he never did. And of course he decided to escalate the insults.

Again, I answered his points, and then Darth Wong entered into the topic. I know he and Poe have a history, and I believe that they are friends off the board (although I am not 100% sure), but he basically called him a liar as well and then didn't back up any claims that he made through out the rest of the thread, to Mike. At this point I threw out my first comment about Wayne's weight. Uncalled for? Maybe, but I don't appreciate being called a liar. As I said later in the thread, if I deserve to be censured then that is fine.

Here, I think is where Wayne got mad. Mike basically took the same exceptions to Wayne's arguments that I did. i.e. Why are you mad about bad manners/rude behavior? How are you equating this behavior to physical violence? You didn't understand that the "questions" about violence in the OP were rhetorical? As clearly, Wayne has a ongoing problem with Mike and his views, it seemed to contribute to his already growing anger in the thread.

Two more things happened at this point; The Duchess of Zeon entered the thread and Mike took an honest, if humorous comment by Captain Chewbacca, incorrectly. The latter lead to Wayne refusing to provide proof of his claims repeatedly when asked, again. And the former lead to his completely uncalled for comments towards Marina.

There was more back and forth between Poe and Mike, but during this, Poe insinuated, twice, that I had thoughts of hitting my wife or that that was something that I would do. In my opinion, Wayne deliberately "misinterpreted" a comment I had made earlier in the thread in order to throw out this particular insult. I'm sorry, but I took extreme exception to this, as did my wife Jennifer, who is a board member as well. (The Wench)

That of course lead to me cutting lose, so to speak, about Wayne's weight. In that post however, I did answer every point that Wayne had made, or attempted to make, another thing he lied about me doing, or in this case not doing. I called for him to provide evidence of some of his claims, which he did not and I assume just ignored. I pointed out his own hypocrisy about my wishing violence on the protesters, by pointing out his similar wishes. Which he ignored. Also, as I posted in the thread in question twice, the insults directed at Poe about his weight, while intended to be hurtful, also served the purpose of showing true hypocrisy, which he clearly has no understanding of.

Wayne then went on to compare being overweight to being gay, and then insult The Duchess of Zeon about, basically her entire life, all in name of his trying to show the board's hypocrisy. He basically ignored any more of my points because I was calling him fat and also began ignoring Mike's points because of some perceived stand on the entire whole of America that he has.

Why am I going through this? As I read this Senate thread I began to wonder if the thread in question was actually being read completely or if the blatant violations of debating policy by Lord Poe were purposefully being over looked because he is a Senator or just a very long term member of this community in general. The remarks of some being too disgusted to read on, seems flimsy as there is an argument/debate in there. It is certainly not in pretty packaging, but it is there. Also the comments on no board rules or violations being committed on Wayne's part seems dishonest, especially as I understand those rules...

Debating Rule 4. Do not use someone's rudeness as an excuse to ignore his points.

Debating Rule 6. If you are asked for evidence to support a claim you've made, you should either produce this evidence or concede the point until such time as you can produce this evidence. People who consistently ignore requests for evidence to support their claims (particularly contentious claims) are not looked upon kindly here.

Wayne certainly ignored my posts and responses after I began insulting him because of his weight. (DB4) He also certainly ignored my requests to provide evidence of the claims he made in our argument while he was still responding to me. (DB6) Without fail, he ignored Mike's requests to do the same. (DB6)
Now if these two rules were not violated by Wayne Poe, just what exactly qualifies as a violation. You could even stretch the imagination and invoke a Rule 2 violation as Poe changed the whole flow of the thread towards his "vendetta" against Mike's views on the US.

Administrative Rule 4. If you have a complaint about the whole board, you are obviously unhappy here, so leave. Complaints like "so this is the way you do things at SD.Net" and "the prevailing attitude here seems to be" etc clearly indicate that you dislike something about our entire board culture and you should leave. If you persist on staying and acting like this, we will make you leave.

While he may have addressed this issue on his own, he has clearly been in violation of it for a while.

Whether or not Wayne has left and solved the issue of his status ad a Senator is irrelevant, if I am to be censured for this, which I have already stated I have no problem with (the lack of mention of this fact leads me further to believe the thread isn't being read, at least not thoroughly), I just want to know exactly what it is that I will be censured for. What rules did I personally violate? Cite them so that I can avoid doing so in the future. Even if it will be a newly created rule just for insulting Wayne about his weight in a myriad of ways.

[RedImperator]

Hav makes a compelling case in his own defense. I recently re-read the thread, trying to get a handle on what exactly went wrong, and I'm inclined to agree with Havokeff's version of the story. I like Wayne, and I'm sorry to see this happen, but not only was he the person driving that thread into the dirt, but he was way out of line insinuating Hav wanted to hit his wife, and out of line doesn't even begin to describe his comments towards Marina. If virtually anybody else had made a remark like that, he would have been instantly banned--I think if I made a comment like that, I would have been instantly banned, and I would have deserved it. That Wayne stood by his remarks after given a chance to apologize, is inconceivable, and unacceptable.

Wayne has saved us the trouble, but if he hadn't, I would reluctantly have to recommend he be expelled from the Senate and banned from the board. As for Havokeff, in my judgment, no punishment is in order.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Now that that's settled, I'd like to add that I do believe I have every right to be happy that Wayne will never be coming back, because under any circumstance his comment was horribly offensive. I stand by the statement that I did not feel uncomfortable on this board ever until Wayne made that comment--and I've been posting here for more than 5 years. The only other time on the ASVS/SD.net community I've felt uncomfortable was when this loon named white rabbit was stalking me on ASVS. Full stop. Wayne blew the line away with a battery of artillery, and in light of that--and his total refusal to take responsibility for his actions--I personally desire to see him given the custom title Hatemonger, and an ex post facto ban.

I would however request that the final thread be deleted rather than moved to Parting Shots, furthermore, as I do not feel comfortable even having it on the board. I cannot emphasize how badly that upset me (and about another five or so transwomen who post or lurk on SD.net, as I noted before). This harmed an entire community on the board, not just me, and please remember that when I say this--I am not trying to be vindictive, but to keep the board welcoming for the T in LGBTs in general. And even if the rest of the stuff is considered vindictive and you're mad at me over even bringing it up, well, fine, you can censure me for doing so, but I really do want the final thread deleted.

[RedImperator]

Without committing to anything just yet (not like I actually have the power to commit to anything anyway), this thread could be used as Wayne's Parting Shots entry. I would prefer not to outright delete the thread in question, for the purpose of keeping the evidence, but it could be moved out of public view.

[Knife]

While Poe has left, the thread itself should be kept due to the conduct of others in it. Whether or not Poe was an ass notwithstanding, the conduct of others in that thread was less than satisfactory as well and should not be 'swept under the rug' due to the actions of another poster.

[Knife]

I seriously considered editing the following PM due to it's content but decided not to. The over all view is not really that off or 'bad' per say, though I object to the (pro noun?) used to reference the 'subject'. Anyway, un-edited;

I wasn't following what was happening very much until someone said to me over AIM

"Poe Left SDN"

and I'm like, "What the fuck what?"

I get given a link to this thread, and see the board-lawyer filled thread that none other than the Duchess initated. Is that the way things are going to be? Each time someone offends it; it will board-lawyer it's way to get the offender in question expelled?

Jesus Titty Fucking Christ.

Fuck it, I might as well come out and say it; but Marina O'Leary, Marina Colette, or whatever the fuck it calls itself now, is categorically incapable of holding any position of authority due to it's long demonstrated history of violent mood swings, capability of flying off at the handle at any perceived insult or slight, and lying blatantly about itself.

Yeah yeah, I can understand the entire "I'm a Lesbian!" thing that it had going for what, ten years; due to the various distaste for trannies, bla bla, but what the fuck was up with it's entire false family history it had constructed; going to great lengths to smear Stuart and the others on HPCA over "the british mafia" it called it -- because it's (supposed) family was from Ireland, bla bla, keeps this facade up for a while.

And then just a month or two ago, it suddenly changes it's backstory, oh no, it's no longer Irish, but now it's White Russian exiles?

Yeah. Sure, right. Whatever. And the Crierie family is somehow the last Royal Family Line of Scotland.

The reason Stuart and the others banned it from HPCA originally, was because it was too god-damned unstable and prone to wild bat-shit-crazy mood swings; not because of any so-called "British Mafia".

That's my view, and I'm sticking with it. And if it disagrees with it; sure, go ahead, start a witchhunt to get me driven from SDN; either way it can sit on whatever it is it has now and rotate on it.

PS - Someone needs to get Amy the fuck out of where she lives now, living with someone who is nuttier than a Payday bar makes me worry about her.

You can go ahead and post this on the Senate thread.

The over all argument is, well I let be. I do, however, massively disagree with the posters mean ass insistence of calling her an 'it'. I'm fairly fond of Marina, even if I find her some what batshit nuts. It is an injustice to twist the screws on her personal problems with things like 'it'.

[Sea Skimmer]

You know, I’ve been repulsed by the boards culture too, and for longer then two years, and I acted on it in a very simple manner, post less, a whole lot less compared to the first three years, and just plain ignore what I don’t like. Sometimes that means a sort of hit and run posting, or taking breaks from even reading the forums, but its worked fine and enabled me to continue to be here. Some words are just best left unspoken, others unread. No one is a coward for declining to argue on the internet, and it does bring out the worst in people. Poe had no excuse, no one else in that thread had any excuse. If any punishment is going to be handed out, it had better be equal or none at all. That thread is way too fucked up for me to accept judging people individually at this point.

And for the record, well my personal record anyway, I used to think Marina was a little insane, well before SDN existed, knowing her true history now, I can now say she is only a little crazy and that the state of her body has everything, and nothing to do with it. But that should never matter anyway. Take that for what you want; but I would at least like to think I’ve known her longer and better then most.

I also do believe I’ve been on HPCA longer then any other active SDN member except Stuart himself, nearly as long as it has existed, and I have a very long memory of Marinias interactions, and the interactions she had with certain shitheads HPCA also banned, so the anonymous snipers on the subject can pony up or shut up.

[The Yosemite Bear]

question? does anyone consider my behavior on that thread bad?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I made up my entire original background at the age of 13 as Marina "O'Leary". And just for the record--my family were extremely minor landowners, nothing more (and I believe I basically repeatedly indicated as much). For the record, in much of Europe, 15% of the population had claim to some noble title or another--and many of them were not much better off than the peasants around them--they just owned their own land and were eligible for the officer class in military service. The other background, as you all know, was made up; I couldn't tell the truth at the time. Something Mike already judged as acceptable--when I outed myself I readily said that I had lied before and I would take whatever punishment was coming to me. And Mike judged that under the circumstances none was appropriate. Collette is my legal last name. If anyone doubts me, I'll put up my goddamned student ID on the board with the SID blacked out.

Now as for this hating monster who wrote that PM--I think we pretty damn well know it was Shep, of course, since he has to bring up HPCA and mentions his real surname--I think it's time to begin an inquest to finally ban him from SD.net. The "it" is well beyond the call of anything. The use of that pronoun is, by itself, a violation of the hate speech rules on this board. So is the implication that I have been anything other than upright around Amy. I liked to think Shep and I had ended up friends again, but now he's gone and shown his real colours. As for the incident on HPCA--yeah, I played the part well, too well--I defended an Irish Catholic point of view so that I would appear plausible.

So yes I lied systematically about my background as part of the backstory I'd established for myself at the age of 13 to let me function normally on the internet as a girl. And that was ALREADY DISCUSSED in March and Mike concluded that since I had never claimed credentials that were faked while on this board, it was NO BIG DEAL. It was a legitimate act of safety to preserve myself from being found out. And it's been a dead issue for, what, seven months now? But not, apparently, for that back-stabbing bastard.

[The Yosemite Bear]

erm this whole thing has me confused...

damn it, I thought Ryan was more or less obsessed with you like tim was...

[Ender]

The over all argument is, well I let be. I do, however, massively disagree with the posters mean ass insistence of calling her an 'it'. I'm fairly fond of Marina, even if I find her some what batshit nuts. It is an injustice to twist the screws on her personal problems with things like 'it'.

Grammatically speaking, the proper pronoun for the object of the sentence that lacks a defined sex is the masculine form - he/him/his. However, given the fact that the use of assigned gender pronouns has come under fire when referring to people, the proper pronoun is actually it. So, grammatically speaking, the plebe is correct to use the pronoun it in this context. There is apparently a push to either create a new pronoun, make use of a few pronouns some have already created, use compound pronouns (eg s/he), or bring back ou and a as gender neutral pronouns, but none of the approaches have been settled on by linguists yet.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The over all argument is, well I let be. I do, however, massively disagree with the posters mean ass insistence of calling her an 'it'. I'm fairly fond of Marina, even if I find her some what batshit nuts. It is an injustice to twist the screws on her personal problems with things like 'it'.

Grammatically speaking, the proper pronoun for the object of the sentence that lacks a defined sex is the masculine form - he/him/his. However, given the fact that the use of assigned gender pronouns has come under fire when referring to people, the proper pronoun is actually it. So, grammatically speaking, the plebe is correct to use the pronoun it in this context. There is apparently a push to either create a new pronoun, make use of a few pronouns some have already created, use compound pronouns (eg s/he), or bring back ou and a as gender neutral pronouns, but none of the approaches have been settled on by linguists yet.

LACKS A DEFINED SEX?

WHAT THE FUCKING HELL IS GOING ON HERE!?

[Ender]

The over all argument is, well I let be. I do, however, massively disagree with the posters mean ass insistence of calling her an 'it'. I'm fairly fond of Marina, even if I find her some what batshit nuts. It is an injustice to twist the screws on her personal problems with things like 'it'.

Grammatically speaking, the proper pronoun for the object of the sentence that lacks a defined sex is the masculine form - he/him/his. However, given the fact that the use of assigned gender pronouns has come under fire when referring to people, the proper pronoun is actually it. So, grammatically speaking, the plebe is correct to use the pronoun it in this context. There is apparently a push to either create a new pronoun, make use of a few pronouns some have already created, use compound pronouns (eg s/he), or bring back ou and a as gender neutral pronouns, but none of the approaches have been settled on by linguists yet.

LACKS A DEFINED SEX?

WHAT THE FUCKING HELL IS GOING ON HERE!?

That's the synopsis that comes up when you google "what is the proper pronoun to use when referring to a transgendered individual". Take it up with them.

EDIT: You know what, fuck it, lets run with this. This is what I was talking about with people acting way out of line. Yes marina, "he" is the proper pronoun to use on an object that lacks a defined sex. Ships are the only exception out of tradition. Go ahead and lose your shit over that. Then maybe look back at what I wrote. The very next sentence I stated that that rule of grammar is considered offensive leading to the use of it. English does not have rules of grammar for referring to transgender and genderqueer communities. And that's the facts of it. But by all means, continue to rage about the fact that the proper pronoun for my chair is "he"

[The Duchess of Zeon]

To repeat, you sanctimonious ass, from Katie's (Iceberg's) coming out thread:

[
I'm not disputing any genetic defect/disorder aspect, my point is that I can predict a transexual person being offended if I (having said awareness) refer to them as their biological sex rather than the one they wish to be. Even though I would be 100% provably correct.

You're not correct, you're wrong. Biology is not just genetics. You are genetically correct, and I am in no way disputing that. I have an XY karyotype. But all the other structural arrangements either can or will be corrected such that I'm otherwise indiscernable from any other sterile female. In that context, the term female is accurate, as it refers to everything, in that case, except karyotype.

Do you follow what's being said here? I don't want to convince you to be unobjective scientifically, I want to show you that your opinion is factually wrong. "female" is not a simple definition of karyotype, and as a case in put, XY females with CAIS are CALLED "XY females". That simultaneously permits scientific accuracy about both their chromosomes and their structural bodily characteristics, and omits no necessary data.

For example Duchess, if I consistently referred to you as 'male, man, guy' because of my awareness you are biologically male, I suspect you would be offended? (I honestly don't know...)

I would hate you with a murderous rage which transcends description, quite honestly, and I would be unable to function around you.

Please note I'm not trying to be offensive or attack your desire to be considered a woman, but I do adhere to an objective definition of male and female and asking me to do otherwise is, in my eyes, asking me to be dishonest.

It is not a "desire" to be "considered" a woman. I am a woman. Biologically I'm am XY female, the exact way that someone with CAIS is. To prove to you that I'm not inventing the usage of the term in this context and that it IS scientifically correct, and that I am NOT asking you to be dishonest by using it, I will provide evidence that the term is used in scholarly publications, and therefore I expect you to concede on the issue. If you wish for maximum clarification on the subject, the longer term "sex-inversed XY females" is appropriate, though I think you can see why the short-form of "XY females" is less awkward in regular conversation.


Incidentally, since I've provided evidence that the scientific community uses the term "sex-inversed XY females" or "XY females", I expect you to not merely concede but use that terminology in all further discussion on the biological aspects of transexualism. I do not expect silence in response to this and evasion, but a concession. The issue is a starkly clear-cut one: My terminology is used when discussion inverted sex expression, your's is not. If you are indeed doing this out of a sense of scientific pedanticism, then it is now time for you to see that you were incorrect.

So the most scientifically accurate term one would use referring to you would be XY female, whereas 'she', 'her' could be supplemented for ease of use, though if technically inaccurate. Correct?

Technically inspecific. As those terms are when referring to any woman, my friend--they are gender-based references in the language with no biological validity whatsoever. "Female" would be technically inaccurate but easy to use, because Female has specific biological connotations. "Woman", "she" and "her" do not have biological connotations.

Therefore in all non-biological discussions, woman, she, and her are normative and to be expected. In biological discussions, the shorthand "XY female" is appropriate, and when full clarification is required, the correct term is "sex-inversed XY female."

Does that all make sense?


Here's a basic chart:

Genetics. Structural biology. Social behaviour

XY = Male. Female anatomy = Female. Female norms: Woman

XX = Female. Male anatomy = Male. Male norms: Man.

X(n)(n)^n = Intersex. Uncertain anatomy = Intersex.

Combinations:

Transexual: XY Female (perfectly gets across combination of XY genetics + female structural biology).

Intersex spectrum chromosome disorders: Intersex is used in all biological cases.

Female social behaviour: Woman, regardless of other characteristics.

Does that all follow rather clearly as a rational classification system to you? It's handy and conveys all the necessary data, so you don't need to worry about being inaccurate.

(Ed.: Corrected to show that sex chromosome duplication can be almost infinite and of any base-pair combinations.)



You will admit that you are wrong now, Ender.


And from the GLAAD website:

Transfocus

We also encourage you to ask transgender people which pronoun they would like you to use. A person who identifies as a certain gender, whether or not they have taken hormones or had surgery, should be referred to using the pronouns appropriate for that gender.

If it is not possible to ask the person which pronoun he or she prefers, use the pronoun that is consistent with the person's appearance and gender expression. For example, if the person wears a dress and uses the name "Susan," feminine pronouns are appropriate.

It is never appropriate to put quotation marks around either the transgender person's chosen name or the pronoun that reflects their gender identity.

You will admit that you are wrong, now, Ender. What you are doing is just as hateful as what Wayne did.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

EDIT: You know what, fuck it, lets run with this. This is what I was talking about with people acting way out of line. Yes marina, "he" is the proper pronoun to use on an object that lacks a defined sex. Ships are the only exception out of tradition. Go ahead and lose your shit over that. Then maybe look back at what I wrote. The very next sentence I stated that that rule of grammar is considered offensive leading to the use of it. English does not have rules of grammar for referring to transgender and genderqueer communities. And that's the facts of it. But by all means, continue to rage about the fact that the proper pronoun for my chair is "he"

I do not lack a defined sex you little worthless cumstain. Now you will read the post above this one and acknowledge that.

The biologically correct term for what I am is a "Sex-inversed XY female" and I have a scientific publication source now posted in this thread to prove it--one that was ALSO posted in this thread back in July, you sanctimonious, pompous, dissemblating fucking whore. There is NO excuse for what you are doing now--it is hateful, hurtful, and unquestionable bigotry and I'm not going to take it laying down.

[Darth Wong]

I was not going to participate in this thread because I had recused myself due to having a long personal history with Wayne. However, the issue with Wayne is apparently moot now, since he has left the board. I therefore think that this issue needs to be closed, since arguing about it does not seem to be resolving anything. In fact, it seems that the longer people argue about it, the more angry people get.

Regarding the use of "he", "she", and "it" pronouns, Ender is correct that one cannot argue against it based on the formally recognized rules of the English language. However, I have to wonder what the hell the rules of English grammar have to do with a complaint about hate speech at all; no one would respond to a complaint about someone using the word "nigger" for blacks by pointing out that it's a technically correct use of the English language (which it is; "nigger" is recognized as a noun for black people in the Merriam-Webster dictionary).

Having said that, we are stuck in a quandary between recognizing both the grievous insult to Marina and recognizing that we probably wouldn't insta-ban a long-time contributor for referring to a black person as a "nigger" once.

(sigh) It would be a lot easier on all of us if Shep were to PM Marina and say something to the effect of "I apologize for calling you 'it' in a PM."

[The Yosemite Bear]

and a pleb brings this to senator bear's attention....

I'm sorry, I've just gotta say something here:

Grammatically speaking, the proper pronoun for the object of the sentence that lacks a defined sex is the masculine form - he/him/his. However, given the fact that the use of assigned gender pronouns has come under fire when referring to people, the proper pronoun is actually it. So, grammatically speaking, the plebe is correct to use the pronoun it in this context. There is apparently a push to either create a new pronoun, make use of a few pronouns some have already created, use compound pronouns (eg s/he), or bring back ou and a as gender neutral pronouns, but none of the approaches have been settled on by linguists yet.

Yeah, cuz Shep was obviously thinking about linguistic formalisms and not, you know, just being a dick for the sake of being a dick.

Jesus Christ what the fuck is wrong with you people.

Post or don't post at your discretion. Feel free to use my name.