"My pronouns" at CVS today ...

[Catwoman]

27 minutes ago, Jenny in Florida said:

Two different things being conflated here, though.

And saying that one isn't valid or worthwhile because the other "didn't work" just doesn't hold up. (Not to mention it's a pretty heartless excuse for denying other humans the right to feel that their identities are accepted and respected.)

But is Melissa really denying anyone the right to feel that their identities are accepted and respected? 

My impression was that she is fine with any individual wanting to be referred to by a neutral pronoun (or whatever other pronoun that person prefers,) but she objects to the idea that a gender neutral pronoun like "they" should be used as the default way of referring to all people in general, rather than by masculine and feminine pronouns. 

I'm sure she will correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think she was trying to deprive anyone of using their own desired pronoun, and I don't think she was making any "heartless excuses" for anything.

[Frances]

13 minutes ago, SKL said:

Yeah, I'm just sharing how the individual 14yo reacted to CVS guy's behavior toward her.  I think she's entitled to her own feelings about how he referred to her.

I'm not making it a big deal.  I just wanted to see how others reacted, and whether this is some kind of policy or trend nowadays.

I wouldn’t describe that as feelings. Feelings would be how the situation made her personally feel, not her interpretation and judgement of the guy’s sexual orientation and motivations. I get that she is only 14, but if it was my child, while certainly acknowledging her actual feelings about the event, I would also talk to her about the dangers of stereotyping people.

[Melissa Louise]

3 hours ago, QueenCat said:

This liberal concurs with you. 

As does this social democrat - who has never watched Fox News. 

[Melissa Louise]

2 hours ago, Jenny in Florida said:

Two different things being conflated here, though.

And saying that one isn't valid or worthwhile because the other "didn't work" just doesn't hold up. (Not to mention it's a pretty heartless excuse for denying other humans the right to feel that their identities are accepted and respected.)

I think using a gender neutral 'they' at all times for reasons of 'accepting identities' is vacuous. I think any social movements that reify gender as natural, instead of smashing gender into bits, are regressive. 

I've used 'they' and other gender neutral terms in my own home, when my son's GD was very bad. It can be a useful term for avoiding distress temporarily.

I'd use 'they/them' for someone's non-binary kid, out of respect for the family. I don't need to believe some ppl are literally neither and both man/woman to respect the beliefs of others in a personal relationship. To me, it's no different that respecting a family who believes in a religion I don't. Respect at the personal level, but no need to pretend to belief otherwise. 

When we are talking in general, not personal terms - yes, I do consider the concept of gender-neutral language as 'respecting identities' both vacuous and regressive. IMO. Others mileage may vary. 

 

[hippymamato3]

16 hours ago, SKL said:

Yeah, I was trying to resolve the fact that the online appointment (that I made) got deleted in their system.  I had the info on my cell phone.  And I was the one needing to give consent.  (And actually this kid didn't want the shot, so I didn't want to give her the chance to decline.)  So I was the person who went over to talk to the guy.  My dd was there for part of it (she did walk off at some point), but she feels shy in those situations and has to be forced to speak up.  I do make her speak for herself in doctor office visits etc., but these particular questions were not about how she was feeling etc.  It's not  like she would have spelled her name differently or given a different birth date, regardless of how she felt about anything.

While all this was going on, I left my other 14yo to fend for herself with the nurse giving the shots.  😛  She's much more confident than her sister.  And FTR I've signed waivers for my kids to attend health visits alone since they were 10, though they usually want me there anyway.

Here, if the child doesn't consent verbally in person, they will not give the shot. 

[hippymamato3]

11 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

Does it work the other way?  If a teen wants the shot, but the parents won't sign off, will that teen be able to go somewhere to get it?

No. Parents have to be there and give consent.

[hippymamato3]

4 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

So they can choose to NOT receive it.....but cannot choose to receive it independently. 

Yes

[ktgrok]

As someone who has MANY times slipped up and used sir for a woman and ma'am for a man, or used he/she wrong - I'm betting he uses "they/them" so that he never has to worry about accidentally messing up. Nothing to do with any "woke" thing, just trying not to mess up when asking the questions a million times. 

[TravelingChris]

18 hours ago, Frances said:

Did you read the article I posted about how generally understaffed and overworked CVS personnel are? While I personally would never get a prescription filled at CVS or any large chain pharmacy, I would hope that the staff in such places would be devoting the majority of their bandwidth to making sure prescriptions are filled correctly. It’s not surprising to hear people in this thread reporting terrible customer experiences at CVS given their corporate model. But if I was an overworked, stressed out pharmacist there who may not get a bathroom or food break all day, my number one priority would be dispensing medication correctly so that I didn’t harm or kill anyone and lose my livelihood (because it’s the pharmacist who will be punished by the state licensing board, not the corporation that put them in a dangerous situation). Paying attention to unrelated details would not be my priority or focus.

My son quit working at Walgreen's as a pharmacy tech because he was just so stressed about making a mistake because they were so overworked-corporate didn't want enough pharmacy techs.  

He then went and worked at Walmart which was such a better place to work as a pharmacy tech.  He had to quit when he became started becoming allergic to yet another category of antibiotics. He was already allergic to Sulfa drugs but by working in pharmacies, he became so allergic to them he had to leave Walmart if they were mixing up sulfa drug for kids and come back in a while.  

He now works for a pharmacy insurance company, handling overrides and such problems and he gets to work at home and no allergies.

[TravelingChris]

10 hours ago, stripe said:

And why would that even be the time to force children to reveal their gender nonbinariness, which is what demanding someone’s pronouns is asking for. 
I personally loath the idea that we’re all supposed to say person with a penis/testicles/vagina/cervix instead of male or female. It is so crass. And excludes men who’ve suffered tragic accidents (12% of battle injuries involve genitourinary trauma) and women with birth defects or the HALF of women who don’t know they have a cervix or don’t know where it is or women who’ve had hysterectomies. Not to mention the Canadian and UK health plans’ encouragement and financial support for trans women to get a Pap smear.

I am completely confused.  Why would a Transwoman need a Pap smear?

[Terabith]

Okay, I know this is piddly and not a huge deal in the scheme of things, but the terminology is AFAB/ AMAB (assigned female/ male at birth), not trans woman.  

A man who was AFAB and has a cervix does need Pap smears.  

[Drama Llama]

6 minutes ago, Terabith said:

Okay, I know this is piddly and not a huge deal in the scheme of things, but the terminology is AFAB/ AMAB (assigned female/ male at birth), not trans woman.  

A man who was AFAB and has a cervix does need Pap smears.  

The article is not referring to that.   The article is referring to people AMAB who have had bottom surgery that includes a vagina ad possibly a cervix, and should apparently be checked regularly for cancer.

I didn't realize that bottom surgery included the creation of a cervix.  I thought it was just a vagina.  

[Terabith]

3 minutes ago, BaseballandHockey said:

The article is not referring to that.   The article is referring to people AMAB who have had bottom surgery that includes a vagina ad possibly a cervix, and should apparently be checked regularly for cancer.

I didn't realize that bottom surgery included the creation of a cervix.  I thought it was just a vagina.  

I'm pretty sure it doesn't create a cervix, but I have been wrong before.  Not something I've asked my trans friends about.

[SKL]

8 hours ago, Sneezyone said:

How does does she even know tho? Was she present or was she told your version of events?

She was present.

[Terabith]

Well, live and learn.  https://www.cancer.ca/en/prevention-and-screening/reduce-cancer-risk/find-cancer-early/screening-in-lgbtq-communities/trans-women-and-cervical-cancer-screening/?region=on

[Not_a_Number]

15 hours ago, maize said:

A gender-neutral pronoun applies to everyone equally.

The flux happening with the word "they" right now has made of it, in some contexts, something different from gender-neutral. Instead of inclusive (male and female, or male or female) as it has been in the past it is now being used by many to distinguish "neither male nor female."

The meaning of a word depends entirely on its usage, and one meaning can push out another. Inclusive gender neutral is not the same as male-or-female exclusive, and it is difficult for one word to effectively convey both the inclusive and exclusive meanings. 

Singular "they" is not a straightforward gender neutral pronoun at this point, it is a word very much in flux. Where it will ultimately settle I am not sure.

Thanks very much for dispassionate linguistic analysis of what's happening with this word. I think it's very accurate 🙂 . 

The situation in the OP would bother me, although probably not enough to make a post about it on an online forum 😉 . 

[stripe]

50 minutes ago, Terabith said:

Okay, I know this is piddly and not a huge deal in the scheme of things, but the terminology is AFAB/ AMAB (assigned female/ male at birth), not trans woman.  

A man who was AFAB and has a cervix does need Pap smears.  

The terminology “trans woman” is what is used in the title of the Canadian Cancer Society web page I was referring to and linked to. I didn’t feel it was appropriate to alter their language when speaking of their own health recommendations.

A biologically male body with a manufactured cervix substitute, be it created from the penis or something else from that body, contains zero cervical cells, and thus this individual does NOT need a pap smear. The manufactured body parts located where the base of the penis is in males, aka “neovaginas,” are made from the person’s colon, which also does not involve cervixes. These are simulations created out of the person’s own body parts, not donor vaginas or something magically grown in labs.

And if all these individuals who have male genes suddenly actually have vaginas and cervixes, then why do biological women get referred to as “people with vaginas” or “people with cervixes” as a means of distinguishing them from others with “female identities“? Per the Human Rights Campaign Foundation (p5): we should talk about “front holes,“ except for trans women who have had “bottom surgery” — they are the ones who have a “vagina.“

At any rate, even the Canadian Cancer Society admitted it wasn’t much of an issue.....despite creating a website for it. The manager told a conservative media group “If a trans woman has had bottom surgery, then it is possible to get cancer in the tissues of their neo-vagina or neo-cervix. This is not the same cancer type as cervical cancer, but is similar to how anyone can develop cancer in any tissue in their body.”

[Roadrunner]

As a native speaker of a language that has no grammatical gender, all these pronouns just blow my mind. 

Edited June 6, 2021 by Roadrunner

[Melissa Louise]

1 hour ago, stripe said:

The terminology “trans woman” is what is used in the title of the Canadian Cancer Society web page I was referring to and linked to. I didn’t feel it was appropriate to alter their language when speaking of their own health recommendations.

A biologically male body with a manufactured cervix substitute, be it created from the penis or something else from that body, contains zero cervical cells, and thus this individual does NOT need a pap smear. The manufactured body parts located where the base of the penis is in males, aka “neovaginas,” are made from the person’s colon, which also does not involve cervixes. These are simulations created out of the person’s own body parts, not donor vaginas or something magically grown in labs.

And if all these individuals who have male genes suddenly actually have vaginas and cervixes, then why do biological women get referred to as “people with vaginas” or “people with cervixes” as a means of distinguishing them from others with “female identities“? Per the Human Rights Campaign Foundation (p5): we should talk about “front holes,“ except for trans women who have had “bottom surgery” — they are the ones who have a “vagina.“

At any rate, even the Canadian Cancer Society admitted it wasn’t much of an issue.....despite creating a website for it. The manager told a conservative media group “If a trans woman has had bottom surgery, then it is possible to get cancer in the tissues of their neo-vagina or neo-cervix. This is not the same cancer type as cervical cancer, but is similar to how anyone can develop cancer in any tissue in their body.”

Don't urologists deal with penile tissue, in whatever configuration? I don't think gynaecologists are (or should be) trained to understand and treat penile or colon tissue, so I do worry people may not be getting the right kind of care if they think SRS gives them a literal cervix. 

Only females need a pap smear. That includes women, NB females, and transmen who retain their cervix. 

[LMD]

7 hours ago, BaseballandHockey said:

The article is not referring to that.   The article is referring to people AMAB who have had bottom surgery that includes a vagina ad possibly a cervix, and should apparently be checked regularly for cancer.

I didn't realize that bottom surgery included the creation of a cervix.  I thought it was just a vagina.  

'Bottom surgery' for male born trans people aka, orchiectomy (surgical removal of testicles) & one of the various vaginoplasty techniques (penile inversion, or intestinal, or colon) do not create either a cervix or a vagina - both are part of only the female reproductive system.

[Momto6inIN]

6 hours ago, stripe said:

 Per the Human Rights Campaign Foundation (p5): we should talk about “front holes,“ except for trans women who have had “bottom surgery” — they are the ones who have a “vagina.“

Reducing women to people who have "front holes" ... what an awesome awesome development in the fight against the objectification of women.

[ktgrok]

Wait...front holes? A penis has a hole too! Everyone has holes. 

[Melissa Louise]

The degrading term 'front hole' isn't even anatomically correct for females, but it's a totally gross term even if it was accurate, and I feel sullied just having typed it. So super gross. Ugh. 

[hippymamato3]

On 6/4/2021 at 8:50 PM, happysmileylady said:

When the customer is literally in front of you, saying "her name is" and you *still* default to the scripted line, that's poor customer service.  What you describe is different than the situation being discussed. 

 

 

One way to think about it is the title Ms.  It's a general title meant to refer to a woman without regard to her marital status.  Some women don't care what title they are addressed with, others care very deeply.  If a retail business were to create a script where use Ms. for all women, not poor customer service.  However if the employee addresses the customer as Ms Smith and she then turns around and says something like "I am here, I am Mrs. Smith" then the employee so then use Mrs.  They should not continue to default to Ms. just because the script says so. 

I don't really think Ms. to Mrs. is comparable to this at all. Nor do I think it would be offensive to still be referred to as Ms. 

[Murphy101]

I think calling individuals “they” in this way is just one slight step better than calling them “it”.

But also I think our sex and our gender are the exact same thing.  I don’t think gender exists outside of the sex we are physically born with.

[Catwoman]

5 minutes ago, hippymamato3 said:

I don't really think Ms. to Mrs. is comparable to this at all. Nor do I think it would be offensive to still be referred to as Ms. 

I know a few women who would absolutely be offended if they identified themselves as “Mrs.” and someone continued to refer to them as “Ms.”  

I will answer to just about anything and not get offended, but I do know women who want to be addressed as married ladies and not as the more generic “Ms.” I also know women who hate the term “Mrs.” and always use “Ms.”

I guess the whole point is that you need to be sensitive to your audience. Starting with a generic term like “Ms.” makes a lot of sense, but if the person’s replies indicate that she prefers a different term, the employee should honor that. It’s just common courtesy.

[regentrude]

10 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

I think calling individuals “they” in this way is just one slight step better than calling them “it”.

But also I think our sex and our gender are the exact same thing.  I don’t think gender exists outside of the sex we are physically born with.

( Not going to discuss whether gender exists, we can disagree on that). But why should every single time a person is referred to emphasize the difference in their anatomy when that is almost never relevant to the situation?

I hate that the first label that is smacked on a baby is what genitalia they have ( often the first words a child hears), and that a human is constantly sorted by that feature into one of two categories. I would love a more gender neutral world, and speech that contributes to it.

Edited June 6, 2021 by regentrude

[Not_a_Number]

3 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

xactly.  It’s not that titles are same as pronouns.  It’s that like pronouns, different people have different preferences regarding them.  Therefore, once the preferred title is voiced (which shouldn’t specifically require the exact words “my preferred pronouns are”) it’s disrespectful to continue to use the generic script.  

You'd think the rule of "do whatever makes the other person comfortable" was the easiest of all possible rules, especially when it causes no harm to anyone else... 

[Murphy101]

1 hour ago, regentrude said:

( Not going to discuss whether gender exists, we can disagree on that). But why should every single time a person is referred to emphasize the difference in their anatomy when that is almost never relevant to the situation?

I hate that the first label that is smacked on a baby is what genitalia they have ( often the first words a child hears), and that a human is constantly sorted by that feature into one of two categories. I would love a more gender neutral world, and speech that contributes to it.

Um. The first words my babies heard were not about their sex. It was lots of other stuff.  “Hello my sweet little Rose!” My first born was “Oh my God. You are amazing.” I honestly don’t remember what all it was for every one of them. 

But birth is also about claiming. You are our blessing, our gift. And we are glad to receive you and praise God for your life joining ours. 

Aside from all that. Reality matters. New parents often exclaim over the beautiful head of hair, birth marks or little quirks of their babies.  So what? It’s part of the claiming and getting know this individual they have been entrusted to care for. 

I am strongly against what most call gender neutral because more often than not, it seems geared to eradicate the reality of our sexes. 

Somewhat how I don’t want to be racist but that does not mean it’s okay to be color blind either. Because colors do in fact exist and denying that would be to deny a very real aspect of who people are. 

[katilac]

 

On 6/4/2021 at 9:00 PM, happysmileylady said:

So, here's an interesting question with these two posts together....

Is a 14yr old allowed to choose whether or not she wants to be vaxxed?

There are at least two different aspects to this: do her guardians allow her to choose? and, does the law allow her to choose? 

Parents/guardians will, of course, vary tremendously. In my household, our kids had quite a lot of say in their medical treatment at 14. And even younger, with it being a continuum based on age, importance of treatment, potential consequences of the treatment, and so on. If my kid was 14 and not wanting to be vaxxed for something, we would discuss the available information and their reasoning, and we would go over the potential consequences of getting or not getting the vax. 

If we're talking about covid vax, the consequences for not getting it might include not seeing older relatives for whatever period of time, not being able to travel certain places or participate in certain activities, and a higher likelihood of getting covid. Would I, personally, require a teen to get the covid vac? I can't imagine that I would, although my kids aren't minors any longer, so it's strictly hypothetical for me. 

Legally, most people think that parents always have the say in medical decisions for minors, but it's actually quite a patchwork in America. Minors in many states have long been able to consent to various medical treatments without parental consent (and sometimes without parental knowledge), particularly for things related to birth control and sexually transmitted diseases.

For example, every state allows minors to consent to STI treatment, and some states extend this to hpv and hep B vaccines. My state allows minors to consent to vaccines and many other medical treatments. VAXTEEN has info by state. 

Here's a National Geographic article that addresses vaccines, along with the growing movement to give minors more say in their personal medical care. 

In reality, I think that parents can often make it very difficult for a 14-year-old to get vaccinated when the parents don't agree, but it is much harder for them to force a vaccination. Regardless of law, I don't know any doctors or clinics who would forcibly vaccinate a teenager. 

 

14 hours ago, Roadrunner said:

As a native speaker of a language that has no grammatical gender, all these pronouns just blow my mind. 

On behalf of English, I apologize for this and many other complications. 

13 hours ago, Melissa Louise said:

Don't urologists deal with penile tissue, in whatever configuration?  

No, urologists treat the urinary tract, aka urinary system. Women most definitely pee and see urologists, lol.  

[Scarlett]

On 6/5/2021 at 1:53 PM, Jenny in Florida said:

Wow, that's .  .  . a leap.

Not everything is a "statement." Sometimes, people are just following the script or not paying attention to the mundane administrative details or just being normal, awkward humans.

And sometimes people are gay and comfortable enough in their own skins not to need to make every interaction a political statement.

And some people are gay and not big fans of pride month.

And sometimes it might be any combination of the above things.

But I really doubt it was intended to be as big a deal as your reaction seems to make it.

I disagree.  I think the 14 year old probably has a good handle of the reality. 

[Frances]

35 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

I disagree.  I think the 14 year old probably has a good handle of the reality. 

And I think that is stereotyping. The idea that because someone is gay (if he even is) they are going to act or think a certain way because it is pride month. 
 

And since you’ve shared in here before that you don’t know any gay people, how would you even know? I can tell you that my gay son and his partner could care less that it is pride month. They are fortunate to be living in a place where there are no issues with their sexuality or relationship.

Edited June 6, 2021 by Frances

[LucyStoner]

I’ve noticed that some people are defaulting to gender neutral pronouns.  I’m not really bothered by it but I think it’s a little silly.  If I minded it though, I would probably just speak up and say something vs. letting it slide and eat at me tho.  I suppose you could say “my child uses feminine pronouns” or heck, you could even say “please don’t misgender my daughter”.  

[Scarlett]

1 minute ago, Frances said:

And I think that is stereotyping. The idea that because someone is gay (if he even is) they are going to act or think a certain way because it is pride month. 

Some time stereotypes exist for a reason. 

[Frances]

3 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

Some time stereotypes exist for a reason. 

You could not be more wrong. How many gay people do you know? I bet if you met my son you would not know he is gay. He and his partner don’t care about Pride month. They are just living their lives and loving each other like any other young couple. They are very fortunate to have been raised and be living in a time and place where they haven’t faced direct discrimination and homophobia, thanks to the efforts of so many before them. And no thanks to people like you.

Edited June 6, 2021 by Frances

[Selkie]

2 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

Some time stereotypes exist for a reason. 

But you said on another thread that you don’t know any gay people, so what makes you think you have insight into what gay people do or do not think or do?

[Frances]

Just now, Selkie said:

But you said on another thread that you don’t know any gay people, so what makes you think you have insight into what gay people do or do not think or do?

And who in the he** thinks it’s ok to stereotype gay people as though they are all exactly alike. I mean seriously. Who else does she think it is ok to stereotype?

[maize]

6 hours ago, regentrude said:

I would love a more gender neutral world, and speech that contributes to it.

I strongly suspect that millions of years of evolution have primed our brains to care very much about the sex of individuals we interact with, and to work efficiently at sorting them into the relevant categories of female or male.

And I see zero evidence that cultures without gendered grammar (such as Chinese) have less tendency to differentiate between the sexes.

[katilac]

5 hours ago, Murphy101 said:

Um. The first words my babies heard were not about their sex. It was lots of other stuff.  “Hello my sweet little Rose!” My first born was “Oh my God. You are amazing.” I honestly don’t remember what all it was for every one of them. 

That's the first words your babies heard from you. The first words most babies in general hear do indeed refer to their genitals, because the vast majority of women have their babies in a hospital, and the vast majority of doctors say "it's a boy!" or "it's a girl!" upon birth (making them the first words most babies hear). 

It used to be the first statement after birth made to anyone in the waiting room as well, or waiting by the phone. That's often not true any longer, but only because it's now said well before birth. Even those who don't have elaborate gender reveal parties usually announce the gender as soon as they find out. 

[katilac]

2 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

I am not sure that what docs said at birth 30+ years ago is relevant to a transgender discussion today.  Today, the words the doc usually says are something along the lines of "congratulations!" or a simply "ok, here we go!   How beautiful!" or something similar. 

In my experience, the "it's a boy/girl!" custom holds strong, regardless of knowing ahead of time. I'm sure it varies. 

But . . . a transgender discussion? Did I miss a lot of pages in this thread? Having preferred pronouns that are not the same as the presumed pronouns does not mean a person is transgender. 

[Melissa Louise]

Sigh. We don't announce (or assign or find out or observe) a gender. 

The baby's SEX is observed. 

Gender is what society piles on top of that simple fact. Eg 'gender reveals', pink for girls, saying 'who's a big strong lad' to boys and 'oh, she's so sweet' of girls 

(In the bad old day, some babies were assigned a sex, due to ambiguous genitalia at birth/during infancy. Thankfully, this doesn't happen as frequently anymore because we have a wider range of techniques to determine the sex of an infant, even one with a difference of sexual development.)

But babies without a DSD have their sex, not a gender,  observed at or before birth.

[pinball]

1 minute ago, happysmileylady said:

I also don't understand why a doc who knows that a girl is being delivered would then redundantly announce "it's a girl!"  Maybe "here she is?"  or "Here's baby Lilibet!" 

Lilibet Diana, perhaps?

[Murphy101]

18 minutes ago, katilac said:

That's the first words your babies heard from you. The first words most babies in general hear do indeed refer to their genitals, because the vast majority of women have their babies in a hospital, and the vast majority of doctors say "it's a boy!" or "it's a girl!" upon birth (making them the first words most babies hear). 

It used to be the first statement after birth made to anyone in the waiting room as well, or waiting by the phone. That's often not true any longer, but only because it's now said well before birth. Even those who don't have elaborate gender reveal parties usually announce the gender as soon as they find out. 

With my first, the first words he heard from anyone was from me. The doctor literally pulled him and plopped him on my chest and didn’t say much else bc he was still working on me. Iirc with most of my others it was various details about the baby. Color and so forth for APGAR score. But I don’t think any of them really talked TO my baby.  They spoke to me. My husband. My friends. But not much to my baby at all that I remember. With the two that were especially in danger it was generic “baby”.  As in, “come on, baby, BREATHE!” Or “Screaming blood pressure and heart rate numbers”

We never did any of the gender reveal stuff. I think it’s weird as all heck.  But we did ask to know the sex of our babies at ultrasound.  But for 2 of the kids you can hear Dh and I talking with the tech in the background of the taped ultrasound asking all kinds of questions and awwwing over all kinds of things we were noting about our new baby. The head full of hair floating like a halo with a few of them, the huge smile and fat checks that my youngest gave us during her ultrasound was stupefyingly beautiful.  My husband blubbered like a fool.  The long fingers of my fourth born fiddling with the umbilical cord like a comfort blanket.  And yes, that they had a penis or a vagina. Because that is just part of who they are. 

[katilac]

4 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

I am confused.  Why would someone prefer pronouns different than their gendered ones.....if they were not trans gendered?   Why would someone who identifies as female prefer male pronouns?  Why would someone who identifies as non binary prefer a binary pronoun?

Nonbinary does not equal transgender. 

3 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

I also don't understand why a doc who knows that a girl is being delivered would then redundantly announce "it's a girl!"  Maybe "here she is?"  or "Here's baby Lilibet!" 

Tradition is very hard to topple. 

With my first born, the doctor kept to the traditional announcement even though we had all known for months that it was a girl. Except she misspoke, and said "it's a boy!" and my mom (who was listening at the door in spite of all my threats) ran off and announced that to everyone in the waiting room so fast that she didn't hear the correction of "I mean a girl, we all know that!" 

We'd had a long run of boys in the family before this, so we didn't tell anyone we knew it was a girl, so my mom was 100% busted for listening in 😂

[Terabith]

18 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

I am confused.  Why would someone prefer pronouns different than their gendered ones.....if they were not trans gendered?   Why would someone who identifies as female prefer male pronouns?  Why would someone who identifies as non binary prefer a binary pronoun?

Just to be extra confusing, some people like to use both gendered and nonbinary pronouns.  So like their pronouns will be "she/ they," and they like to hear a mixture.  

I am so glad that none of my offspring have made that choice, because I think that would be very hard.  

[KSera]

18 minutes ago, katilac said:

Nonbinary does not equal transgender. 

That seems to be a matter of opinion. My nonbinary person identifies as transgender, but is aware some people think they don’t “count”. It seems to me more common than not for nb people to consider themself transgender. 
 

eta: Also, the transgender pride flag’s white stripe represents those who are either questioning or non-binary. 

Edited June 7, 2021 by KSera

[Tanaqui]

Just to be clear, the generally polite term is "transgender", not "transgendered". The latter isn't a slur or anything like that, but it is dispreferred.

[Scarlett]

1 hour ago, Frances said:

And who in the he** thinks it’s ok to stereotype gay people as though they are all exactly alike. I mean seriously. Who else does she think it is ok to stereotype?

Wow, I mean, chill…..lol…I just said, sometimes stereotypes exist for a reason. It is disingenuous to deny the possibility that the cvs worker was indeed trying to make a statement…..

[Scarlett]

2 hours ago, Frances said:

You could not be more wrong. How many gay people do you know? I bet if you met my son you would not know he is gay. He and his partner don’t care about Pride month. They are just living their lives and loving each other like any other young couple. They are very fortunate to have been raised and be living in a time and place where they haven’t faced direct discrimination and homophobia, thanks to the efforts of so many before them. And no thanks to people like you.

I could not be more wrong that stereotypes exist for a reason?   🤦🏻‍♀️
 

And what do you mean by ‘people like you’.   Is that a stereotype by chance?

 

[Frances]

5 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

Wow, I mean, chill…..lol…I just said, sometimes stereotypes exist for a reason. It is disingenuous to deny the possibility that the cvs worker was indeed trying to make a statement…..

No way am I going to chill. Stereotypes can be very dangerous. If you want to live in ignorance about gay people, fine. But at least show respect by not stereotyping people.

And I’m not denying it’s a possibility. But that’s very different than saying stereotypes exist for a reason. And again, you’ve admitted you know no gay people. So it’s very likely that everything you think you know about gay people is based on stereotypes.