This just in: I am a woman! Again. At least according to a blogger calling herself miliefisathand, who recently wrote a post about that “are nice guys sociopaths?” post I wrote a while ago.
Her evidence? When writing her response to me, she repeatedly found herself referring to me using female pronouns — so therefore I must actually be a woman.
Yes, that’s actually her argument:
While editing my article I lost count of the number of times I had to change “her” or “she” to “him” and “he”. I don’t normally make gender pronoun errors so I have a deep suspicion that the author is a woman impersonating a man. I’m spiritually sensitive to such things.
Hate to break it to you, but your guy-dar is way off. Protip: I post under my real name, and if you google that name, you will find ample evidence that I am, in fact, a real, living dude.
In the case of MRA dudes who misgender me as a woman, it’s clearly the result of their misogyny. In the case of miliefisathand, a self-described Smartassed Burmese Transwoman, I don’t quite understand what exactly is going on.
She also misses the point of my post, and the comments from regulars here that offered some pretty sensible criticisms of what I wrote, but at this point it’s not exactly a shock to see a Man Boobz critic arguing against things I didn’t say rather than things I did say.
Well, “spiritually sensitive” does sound a lot better than “I pulled it out of my ass.”
What the fuck is she even talking about?
And hasn’t the hive mind already awarded David an honorary vagina, anyway?
I can see why that would leave her feeling sensitive. Someone should advise her to keep her opinions in a more comfortable place
She exhibits an amazing talent for reading “comprehesion”. Like how she thought you were backpedaling from calling Nice Guys sociopaths. After quoting you saying the exact opposite in the beggining of her post.
FTR I totally am a bunch of viscaria flowersz
I am in no way defending “nice guys”. In a way I am, however, defending sociopaths. As horrible as the things they are capable of are, I think to list them along side the sniveling wimp that is the nice guy is…
1. dangerous (waters down the sense of caution that needs to be exercised when in the presence of true sociopathy. then again this may be their plan after all)
2. disingenuous (its giving “nice guys” more credit than they deserve)
3. Misleading (misinforms the reader. comparing a nice guy to a sociopath is a slippery slope into comparing them to aspies (which is more than bit offensive, don’t you think?)
4. Pointless (I have a slight hunch nice guys are a relatively new phenomenon, the most educated choice would be to compare them to nothing. “niceguys”, being the bottom of the barrel would only gain ill deserved repute and all other groups in such comparisons would suffer undeserved defamation. Such drivel will always be slanderous.
Another thing, The whole David’s-gender-thing is just me talking shit.
Saying I’m spiritually aware of such things is a component of my shit talk: The punchline to my joke if shit talking can be considered humorous; which it is.
Miliefsathand – I can actually see your point of view on the “sociopath” thing. I don’t think that giving strangers Internet Diagnoses is appropriate, even as shit talk.
But I don’t think misgendering people is appropriate, even as shit talk.
Anyway I’m pretty sure David is a five-year-old boy with a terrifyingly red complexion. That’s how I always picture him.
Does your post come with a decoder ring telling people which parts are supposed to be taken seriously and which parts are talking shit? Because to a general observer, the whole thing appears to be shit.
So she thinks she has a supernatural ability? I suppose that belief makes her feel more special than us mere mortals.
I never said I was trying to be appropriate. My perception of his gender was inaccurate. I thought he was a she. I found this slightly amusing and felt compelled to make it known. To segregate my digression from the rest of my post I wrote in italics wherever applicable.
“I can see why that would leave her feeling sensitive. Someone should advise her to keep her opinions in a more comfortable place”
touche! WordPress>my ass. I’m afraid it wins every time.
“Does your post come with a decoder ring telling people which parts are supposed to be taken seriously and which parts are talking shit? Because to a general observer, the whole thing appears to be shit.”
This one is clever too.
Estimated time to meltdown: 2 hours. This one is sensitive.
This poe is odd…
Well the subject of the post is here, Ruby has also popped her head in, this is going to get messy..
So, Accepting People 101!
People are people.
Gender is a thing about people. The only thing you should be paying attention to when deciding what gender someone is is the gender they tell you they are! Then you will not get transpeople hating you for getting it wrong.
David says he is a man, ergo he is a man. Hoorah! We’re done!
… I just summoned all the anti-trans trolls down on my head, didn’t I?
@Jumbo, what is this I don’t even
Oddly like the belief that someone is a Good Progressive Person despite being in favour, in some circumstances, of rapists raping people.
Heh.
I’m surprised garvan didn’t start that post with “since it’s just us women here, wouldn’t you agree that…”
Also: “I suppose that belief makes her feel more special than us mere mortals.”
This makes me wonder if Ruby is setting us up every time she posts, I mean come on! It’s just so obvious and ripe for a comeback.
Pretty sure Garvan’s just funnin’, you guys.
And I wish Ruby wouldn’t drop in with these “ha ha, everything’s fine between us, how bout those MRAs” comments. It puts me in this weird situation where I’d feel kinda vindictive saying “WELL THANKS, RAPE APOLOGIST” to her relatively innocuous comments, but at the same time I feel kinda trampled on if I let her pretend everything’s cool.
Holly: re Garvan: Hope so!
Re Ruby: This one was too perfect a setup to go for. Most of the time I don’t, but when there’s a direct link to the rape apologism…
garvan, what the bloody hell are you on about? Or just on?
shit fuck damn
Cliff. Sorry.
miliefisathand: *Makes an assumption, misgenders someone as a result of said assumption, attempts to justify mistake by claiming assumption might secretly be Truth*
Internet: *Mocks this*
miliefisathand: *Claims she was kidding and it was Internet’s fault for not getting it*
Wait.
I have no idea if you were actually trying to claim that you can see through David’s dude disguise to the woman he “actually” is . . . or whether you were “shit talking” like you said when you were called out on this foolishness . . . but seriously: it’s an awesome idea to say what you mean and only what you mean. If you don’t want to be one of those people who reaches for the “devil’s advocate” defense every time they turn out to be wrong about something, seriously, don’t misgender people and then claim you’re likely to know better than they do what gender they are. Whether in fun or in plain jerkitude, that’s an asshat thing to do.
(And if you actually meant it at all underneath the “I was shit-talking” defense – meant that your assumptions about other people’s gender are more likely to be true than to be misperceptions – all I’ll say is wow, check that ego. People make mistakes, and that includes you.)
MorkaisChosen – no worries. I only have a problem when people get all “well you’re really Holly, see I remembered who you are, you can’t fool me” about it.