I understand that some people don’t identify as male or as female, but their name could at least be given or some kind of hint such as “the person sitting in the wheelchair wearing a dress”. Of course I would think of this person as female, but most people who saw the person would too unless they said “I don’t identify as female” just as most people who see a person with a guide dog or white cane identifies that individual as a “blind person” even though they may not identify themselves as “blind”. They may be visually impaired but still see.

What do we call people if not male and female? Everything is broken into groups of feminine and masculine from the basis of languages to washrooms. .-= Kimberley´s last blog ..A Short Lesson on the Term “Quadriplegic” =-.

You gave the impression that it was your belief. Which universities? – it is still utter crap and anyone teaching that should not be teaching.

What utter utter crap – if you really believe that you need help – racism affects all races.

If you want a definition of racism it would be “The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.” (my bold) Unfortunately, one of the biggest flaws in modern race relations, is an over eagerness to use the term “racism” or “racist” to describe any undesirable inter-action between two people of different races without establishing the true underling motive.

I have previously disagreed that it’s that easy to tell someone’s gender, and more than one person personally affected by such attitudes told you how hurtful that attitude can be. I don’t think it’s ever appropriate to question someone’s identity, actually, and I’m not sure why you don’t think it’s problematic to misidentify someone by calling them by a binary gender they don’t conform to.

As has been explained to you more than once, in some detail, I am aware of the problems with giving video explanations as full as I would like and also respecting people’s identities. I do not like being in a position where my attempt at accommodation is not as good as I’d want. I have explained the process and efforts behind trying to give a full and accurate description and also not mislabelling the people in the video. I’m not going to go through it again. The point is, I am trying my best to not put one group above another (especially as, you know, some visually impaired or blind people don’t fit the binary, too). Again, you can’t know how many people don’t fit the binary. And it’s really offensive to say it’s okay to mislabel them because you think they’re not a big group and, what, therefore their identities must be subsumed? We are not mislabelling by calling people “people;” that does not mean they are being assigned a genderqueer, androgynous or any other kind of identity, non-binary or binary. I am not about affirming people as the people they appear (to whom?) but as they are; I am not about to judge based on someone’s appearance to me, as a privileged binary-conforming person. I’m not sure what the point of comparing their numbers against those of visually impaired people is. Sure, the idea of gender as a binary is comforting to some people, but it’s also used to harm vulnerable people, and I am trying to not contribute to that here. I myself like to be affirmed as a woman, and ideally I would like to affirm that for the women in the video, but at the end of the day I’d rather affirm everyone’s humanity than cause them hurt by misidentifying them. You don’t have to agree, that’s just my approach, and I think it’s a valid one.

Calling someone a “female” rather than a “woman” is dehumanising. There’s a lot of writing around on the subject. When referring to humans, “female” is only politely used as an adjective. You are also hugely misrepresenting the ableist word profile. Perhaps you missed the posts on what its purpose is? There were a couple just this week if you want to go have a read. Nobody is saying that the words need to be taken out of speech at all. Of course we aren’t going to police words used self-referentially. Yes, I am aware that the video used madness, and am aware of the issues surrounding that, as you will realise if you go read the posts on language on the site. Did you consider that some of the participants may self-define as mad? I think it’s unclear from the context as to the sense the word is being used in. As for racial epithets, you’re referring to ‘honky’? First, did you check the context of that link? Secondly, racism cannot happen to white people, it is impossible by definition (racism = prejudice + power).