I wasn't disagreeing with you, just pointing out that (as far as I'm aware, I'm really not an expert) gender identity is neurological in nature, which falls under the umbrella of biology.

Last I checked, the current scientific consensus is that Transgenderism is not at all a mental illness (though see above for my credentials in this area).

Eh, I suppose. I'm just confused on the use of they as a gender marker because if they is used to define your gender then, by use of 'they', it means their gender is an unknown or unvaried entity, which I suppose could be accurate if the girl is in a gender crisis. Or maybe she wants to use they to hide that she's transgender maybe? Who knows. Too many variables are at play. But as you said, use of language changes, so maybe they will be in time a new gender marker I suppose.

@Provided- There's a sort of discrepancy. Some who are trans feel they were born with the wrong genetic make up of their current six which I've heard is possible when you see some trans people have a brain more reflective of the gender they perceive themselves to be. I mean, errr....Nevermind, I forgot my thoughts. Something about perceptions being the same along the lines of spirtuality?

Edit: oh wait, now I remember. It's no different than someone being Christian, Atheist, Muslim and so on. Religious views are a perceived belief and identity, same as a trans person is of the perceived belief and identity of the gender they feel is 'right' to them? Who are we to determine when a person is wrong on their gender perceptions? I mean, you could say it's more a physical defect than mental when you see scans of some trans people being reflective of the six they feel they are. Almost a sort of 'issue at the warehouse' kind of thing when the baby is being formed in the womb, the brain is male but the body is female and vice versa.

Even if it were the case that biology equated directly to neurological / gender identity, it doesn't help us when the individual is intersixed or has a genotype / phenotype that is not XY-male or XX-female. It is entirely possible that an individual may be biologically (XY) male, but have a gender identity of female. There are a multitude of factors and variables that can influence an individual's gender identity, such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_identity#Influencing_factors, which can cause differentiation between biological genitalia and neurobiology, let alone the environment outside of the womb.

I wasn't arguing with you about how gender identity works (I completely agree with you there), just the terminology you were using (i.e. whether the study of gender identity falls under the label of biology). Otherwise, I think we're more or less on the same page? Unless of course I'm misunderstanding something in your post.

Oh, I see. My mistake. The study of gender identity often falls under neuropsychology / cognitive psychology, clinical psychology, or social psychology, depending on the specific aspects / interest of the researcher.

I can empathize with people who have gender identity problems, but "they"? really? I can call you an it if you so please, but come on. Then again, if I call you an it, it'd sound like you were an inanimate object.

Ahh, thanks for clearing that up. I should really do more research into this, it's interesting stuff.

We just had this discussion.

Horse, meet Nuka Cola sign.

Maybe you misinterpreted the situation -- it wasn't about gender, it was about the fact that they are a hivemind consisting of multiple egos in the same body.

English could definitely use a gender-inspecific pronoun.

"Hrm?"

Shimey

Bazooper?

Most pronouns are gender inspecific.........

My guess is Lackadaisical meant a gender-inspecific singular third-person pronoun that isn't "it" or "they".

God?

Was going to respond in detail about my feelings to Reneer and Not Provided but it turned into a pretty big rant on semantics, which is precisely what I am arguing about. But to just give a brief TL:DR about the whole issue...

What I am advocating against is the misuse of language, I am not advocating against people of any specific mindset or gender. I just dislike seeing people taking offense at labels that are in their own way correct, insisting on a different label that not only is not even new, but has a totally different meaning from what they are trying to describe. To take a layman anology (which I hope you don't take too seriously, anologies are meant to be overly simplified versions of what is being described after all). In one hand you have a cookie, you call it a cookie. In the other you have a cookie, but this one is different because it's been dunked in milk. Both are cookies, and neither cookie should take offense at that. However the milk dunked cookie is different, so you could call it something more descriptive than just "cookie" maybe "milcookie" but you can't call it a lettuce.

Sometimes I feel these kind of arguments are far too driven by feelings and not by objective points.

Something interesting that comes to my mind is the fact that the formal way to address someone in the second-person in German is to literally refer to them as "they."

So for example, two Germans having a conversation might say:

And so forth.

EDIT: Of course in reality, if you're on a close enough relationship to watch a Batman film with somebody, you probably wouldn't be talking to them formally about it like that. But you get the picture.

I agree the "they" mentioned is used as a gender neutral pronoun, as others have mentioned.

I personally would gladly accept that person's request, as it is a minor thing anyways and it would make that person happy. Though personally, I would prefer to use the word "person" over "they".

Btw. Why are we assuming this person is genderless? They could be someone who has both gender parts (Trying to put this the best way I currently can without getting censored or into trouble). How I see it...

Body wise, you are a male, female, genderless, or 'both gender parts'.

However, you are as you see yourself to yourself... (Though note; this is mental wise, not body wise). So, this person may be female, may be genderless, or something else that isn't male; it is best NOT to ask though as that is a private matter and it is also best not to judge this person and simply respect their wishes.

... and that's the idea. You identify people by the way they want to be identified, not on how you want to identify them based on your "rules". Simple as that. We're not talking about objects, we're talking about people.

Exactly. I would have asked, "How many of you are there?"