Associated Press issues new guidance on gender: avoid referring to ‘both’ or ‘either’ sexes

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: winterwind93

You can't make it any clearer for me at all; you're repeating your own beliefs about an off-topic subject.

This is not another "I don't think them Transgendered people matter" thread ... this is about the AP's style changes.

Do you want to talk about that topic, the topic of this thread, or do you want to rant about your beliefs?

I will try to be patient with your quaint and ineffectual way of thinking.

Like I said:

They are men, or they are women. There are two types, and only two types. And the AP suggestion is against that. So some of us object. What part of this is confusing to you?

The reason I then brought up transgender is because some people might use the concept to disprove binary genders, and so I explained how so called "transgender" people are in fact just normal binary gender people who have been modified. Albeit extensively. And albeit not normal enough that I would want to hang out with them.

The relevance is all perfectly clear. So let's stop with the semantic nonsense, asking people to explain why they said something and focus.

a reply to: winterwind93

Your attempts at condescention and insult only make the weakness of your position quite clear.

This thread is about one thing only, style changes set forth by the Associated Press.

Your baseless opinions are merely unsubstantiated beliefs. You're not even addressing the topic.

We're done.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: winterwind93

Your attempts at condescention and insult only make the weakness of your position quite clear.

This thread is about one thing only, style changes set forth by the Associated Press.

Your baseless opinions are merely that. You're not even addressing the topic.

We're done.

Oh my god. WTF.

The style changes say to avoid implying there are two genders. So I'm talking about gender.

The only person who has come up with a real response is

originally posted by: MacK80

You, gryphon, on the other hand....I don't know what the hell you're doing.

(from the OP)

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: MacK80
a reply to: Gryphon66

A beautiful remark, but by the time the left is done, there will be some demanding to be called it.

Using a non-descript on purpose when knowing someone prefers an identity is just being an ass however.

Not sure who "the left" is referring to specifically, but, people demand to be called a lot of things that have personal relevance to them.

However, in standard English, "it" is used to refer to things, not people. Yes, using it for a person is generally "being an ass" specifically in this context.

The AP, however, only asked for a minor change in the use of three words, and, encourages the use of binary reference when needed.

This whole side-show thread is just another excuse for ignorance to be paraded as relevance.

Some say that this can ultimately lead to censorship, as a trans person, forgive me for seeing what they mean by that.

Marg had no argument and was a sideswipe while you're right on track, I'm just saying it is actually concerning to attempt to be politically correct all the time. My situation would be a simple one, but when the terms become more complex and less known that's where frustration comes in for people, even myself... It's like incorrectly identifying a language a bunch of times, they shouldn't even hold personally feelings at all over this, but it's a frustrating inconvenience to them, so they just detach themselves until it becomes more clear on a public scale. Even from a progressive standpoint these are irrelevant small details compared to the frustration of obvious discrimination. Trans people only want to be directly identified correctly, this has spun out of control over what should be said completely, maybe not completely in this specific circumstance, but to try to circle into my first point, this specific difference means a lot.

That clipped image is purportedly from the online AP Stylebook.

However, here is a link to the online AP Stylebook.

I can't find that clipped section at all. Still looking.

ETA: Apparently, the "screen clip" is from an email regarding upcoming changes to the Stylebook that haven't been implemented yet.

At any rate, if they are implemented, the Stylebook still calls for the use of binary terms when appropriate.

This thread is much ado about nothing, and apparently stands only as a bully pulpit for those with antiquated beliefs that they feel have to be imposed on others at every opportunity.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

(from the OP)

Yeah, it says "not all people fall under one of two categories for sex or gender." This isn't true (caveat). So that's an objection we have, and a perfectly relevant one.

Then it says, "avoid references to both, either, or opposite sexes or genders as a way to encompass all people." And we object to that, and we talk about the nature of gender to clarify our objections. Such suggestions are indeed at best, pointless, and at worst, a sign of crazed PC nonsense.

I can't believe i'm in a situation of explaining why something was said...

a reply to: winterwind93

Perhaps you shouldn't write for the AP if you don't want to follow their guidelines then?

/shrug

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: winterwind93

Perhaps you shouldn't write for the AP if you don't want to follow their guidelines then?

/shrug

Okay. So now you realize that everything I have said about gender and transgender people is completely relevant to the OP and the thread. Good job.

Now, I have told you the facts, and at some point you will accept this.

a reply to: MacK80

I'm not sure there's anything that can be construed as "politically correct" in the screenshot of possible changes in the AP style manual. It seems really straightforward.

You seem to be talking about confusion in a period of cultural adjustment to the way people are. I understand that.

We're not going to make any progress, however, by conforming to "the way it's always been" when that way doesn't reflect reality.

Further than that, we aren't going to make a lot of progress toward ending discrimination by simply kow-towing to the status quo, in my opinion.

However, those statements have nothing to do with the OP or from what I can see, the changes in the AP Stylebook.

originally posted by: winterwind93
[
The only person who has come up with a real response is

originally posted by: MacK80

That's not exactly a real response. That's mocking the absurdity of the lowest common denominator argument.

What makes "You"-"You" is genetics, correct? While on the base level there are more than 2 types of sexual Chromosomes, so reproduction is more accurately the mixing of genes, not an elegant Adam and Eve story.
Some might argue what makes you who you are is in the brain however, leaving many interpretations.

Both of those aside- there are simply many defects that cause issues with Chromosomes, Brain developments, Genital Developments, etc. Did you know you start off a girl? Well if your body didn't kick in the physical components to growing your stuff, you would remain that way.

You can detach to nearly a third level of interpretation and suggest nearly all Gender Roles are comprised of 2 sets, male and female, based of sociological aspects. This is the least accurate and praised as the most truths, for example women are weak, when their muscle competitions are actually superior development that simply are more efficient. It's nearly all based on stereotypes and almost no science at all.

originally posted by: winterwind93

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: winterwind93

Perhaps you shouldn't write for the AP if you don't want to follow their guidelines then?

/shrug

Okay. So now you realize that everything I have said about gender and transgender people is completely relevant to the OP and the thread. Good job.

Now, I have told you the facts, and at some point you will accept this.

Nothing you've said has anything to do with the topic or with reality.

If you wish to persist in garden-variety tactics to mislead, I can't stop you.

I can ignore you, however.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I just wasn't caught up, my statements seem less contextual now that I understand.

originally posted by: MacK80
a reply to: Gryphon66

I just wasn't caught up, my statements seem less contextual now that I understand.

No worries.

As a slight dodge off-topic ... you may find that the folks in here don't want to talk about the subject either of the AP Stylebook or of real Trans* issues.

They want to evangelize and expectorate over their opinions, nothing more. Be cautious with getting too personally involved.

Best.

a reply to: Gryphon66

The fact that it came to this is odd, I find it hard to believe that the AP thinks there are more than 2 sexes. Do you think there are more than 2 sexes?

If so what is it?

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: Gryphon66

The fact that it came to this is odd, I find it hard to believe that the AP thinks there are more than 2 sexes. Do you think there are more than 2 sexes?

If so what is it?

Well, aside from the screenshot in the article at the arch-conservative Moonie Times ... I have no way to verify that the material is actually from the AP ... apparently, you ahve to be a member to access the online Stylebook.

However, if the screen clip is authentic, there's no statement from the AP that "there are more than two sexes."

a reply to: Gryphon66

Going by the story, that is the point of the thread, would you say there is more than 2 sexes?

a reply to: seasonal

That's not what the AP says.

Do you want to talk about the AP, the Moonie Times take on the AP, or basic biology?

In general for humans there are two sexes with considerable anatomical and genetic variation. There are also people who are intersex.

a reply to: Gryphon66

That's OK, you don't have to answer.

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: Gryphon66

That's OK, you don't have to answer.

I did answer, and you've answered me. You're not here to talk about your subject.