• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Non-binary identities are valid

Status
Not open for further replies.
Belz... said:
In the legal and moral sense.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure that "equally valued in the moral sense" has any any meaning without a whole bunch of arbitrary philosophical scaffolding. Equally valued in a legal sense seems like a strange construction also. The usual expression is surely equal before the law, equal in law etc... I'm not sure how to quantify how much the law values somebody.
 
angrysoba said:
Making everyone paraplegic is treating everyone equally. What's wrong with that?
Click to expand...

I have never proposed making anyone anything. That is entirely your concoction. I have no problem treating people equally, and as equals, while leaving them just as they are.


Maybe they both seem clumsy to you, but the first is commonly used even by people with no ideological skin in the game. Would you tell a person they were wrong to use it that way?

The second is far less common, and may well require an over-riding of people's ideas about what is grammatical if it is going to take off among generations not still going through school.



That's a big if which is what I was explaining to you earlier.
Click to expand...

I have no intention of telling anyone they are wrong about anything that they do. I may very likely think it but I just do not care enough about them to try to change anything. I have no idea why you think I want to change people or impose my views on anyone. If I have given you the impression that I wish to do those things I suppose that was poor communication on my part. I really thought that I have been clear that the details of what people do relative to the subject of this thread is entirely their own concern. I will not be changing my approach in my dealings with people in general to accommodate a small subset of those people that I will likely never encounter.
 
d4m10n said:
Okay but what's the analogy supposed to tell us?

Is using "it" as a catchall pronoun undesirable since most people prefer to have [something analogous to] working limbs?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Perhaps that should be answered by the poster who made the analogy. I doubt that anyone else has the answer.
 
shuttlt said:
I'm not sure that "equally valued in the moral sense" has any any meaning without a whole bunch of arbitrary philosophical scaffolding. Equally valued in a legal sense seems like a strange construction also. The usual expression is surely equal before the law, equal in law etc... I'm not sure how to quantify how much the law values somebody.
Click to expand...

Huh? Morally means how we treat each other from day to day, and legally means our rights. How are either of those meaningless or strange?
 
shuttlt said:
I'm not sure that "equally valued in the moral sense" has any any meaning without a whole bunch of arbitrary philosophical scaffolding. Equally valued in a legal sense seems like a strange construction also. The usual expression is surely equal before the law, equal in law etc... I'm not sure how to quantify how much the law values somebody.
Click to expand...

Considering that this appears to be a sideline to some comments I have made, allow me.

My (consistent, I hope) position is that I do not particularly value people in general. I find that it smooths my path through life if I deal with the people I encounter in a fair and reasonable manner, ie; as equals in a very broad sense. If my idea of what “equal” consists of is not the same as that of someone who likes to dig deep into definitions, then too bad for them, I say.
 
Last edited:
Steve said:
I have no intention of telling anyone they are wrong about anything that they do.
Click to expand...

Third-person gender-neutral singular they. Even people who consider it unnatural use it very often in their speech and writing, almost without thinking. My guess is that very few people do that with “it” which is why your idea of using “it” instead of “they” requires a bigger rewiring of people’s brains than simply expanding the use of “they”.
 
Last edited:
Steve said:
Considering that this appears to be a sideline to some comments I have made, allow me.

My (consistent, I hope) position is that I do not particularly value people in general. I find that it smooths my path through life if I deal with the people I encounter in a fair and reasonable manner, ie; as equals in a very broad sense. If my idea of what “equal” consists of is not the same as that of someone who likes to dig deep into definitions, then too bad for them, I say.
Click to expand...

There’s another.
 
Last edited:
Note: my objection is to the logic not the content...

arthwollipot said:
If I call you an ass and you get offended by that, it's not your problem for being offended, it's my problem for calling you an ass in the first place.
Click to expand...
Sure, because "ass" is, in and of itself intended as an offensive term. On the other hand, if I call you "wolli" as a term of familiarity and you get offended by it, that's totally on you. If you call me "kitty" and I get offended, that's on me. I might ask that you not do so for whatever reason, but the term "kitty" (or "wolli") isn't inherently offensive.
 
angrysoba said:
Third-person gender-neutral singular they. Even people who consider it unnatural use it very often in their speech and writing, almost without thinking. My guess is that very few people do that with “it” which is why your idea of using “it” instead of “they” requires a bigger rewiring of people’s brains than simply expanding the use of “they”.
Click to expand...

angrysoba said:
There’s another.
Click to expand...

I have never claimed to be anything other than content with the status quo. I also tend to use “he” and “she” constantly. I am so ashamed - oops, no I am not. You must be confusing me with the people who claim there is a need to change the common use of words to accommodate a few snowflakes who cannot abide their own identity (Ooh... hyperbole that may well appear to be in complete contradiction with what I have said about my own daughter :eek:. It’s not so don’t bother.) To those who wish to change the meaning of words as they apply to a small segment of the population I suggest an existing non-sexist, non-racist, non-discriminatory word that is readily recognized as being applied to a singular noun (person, place, or thing as you were taught in elementary school) and I am told that it cannot be done because baggage. Then some posters tie themselves in knots trying to catch me in a contradiction because they think they might upset my non-existent strongly held beliefs on the topic. Keep trying if you wish but any success you think you may be having is an illusion.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Note: my objection is to the logic not the content...


Sure, because "ass" is, in and of itself intended as an offensive term. On the other hand, if I call you "wolli" as a term of familiarity and you get offended by it, that's totally on you. If you call me "kitty" and I get offended, that's on me. I might ask that you not do so for whatever reason, but the term "kitty" (or "wolli") isn't inherently offensive.
Click to expand...

Generally true, but again, context. I have no trouble thinking of a conversation where calling a person an ass, or similar, is not the least bit offensive.

A favorite from my misbegotten youth as featured prominently in the Woodstock documentary movie, where Joe McDonald tells the audience “ there’s three hundred thousand of you ******* (auto censor do your thing) out there”. A term that could be very offensive is instantly recognized by many thousands of people as a term of endearment. For anyone in that audience who was offended by that comment that was, to borrow your term, on them, not on Joe.
 
Steve said:
I have never claimed to be anything other than content with the status quo. I also tend to use “he” and “she” constantly. I am so ashamed - oops, no I am not. You must be confusing me with the people who claim there is a need to change the common use of words to accommodate a few snowflakes who cannot abide their own identity (Ooh... hyperbole that may well appear to be in complete contradiction with what I have said about my own daughter :eek:. It’s not so don’t bother.) To those who wish to change the meaning of words as they apply to a small segment of the population I suggest an existing non-sexist, non-racist, non-discriminatory word that is readily recognized as being applied to a singular noun (person, place, or thing as you were taught in elementary school) and I am told that it cannot be done because baggage. Then some posters tie themselves in knots trying to catch me in a contradiction because they think they might upset my non-existent strongly held beliefs on the topic. Keep trying if you wish but any success you think you may be having is an illusion.
Click to expand...

Huh? I’m pointing out that you and just about everyone else already uses “they” as a singular gender neutral pronoun, at least in some cases, so it is already easier to use than “it” which almost nobody does. In other words, “they“ has a stronger case than “it” because it is already often used naturally (despite your initial denials) even by people who think it would involve “changing the meaning of words”. No change is necessary as can be observed by the fact you already use it. So introducing “it” is already down a point.

Then, in addition to being used naturally, “they” is less offensive to the snowflakes than “it”. Unless you see triggering the snowflakes as a goal, causing less offense rather than more is usually preferable. That puts “it” down another point against “they”.

In other words, your proposal for using “it” instead of “they” has no linguistic basis nor does it have any social benefit and this doesn’t need to be taken seriously.
 
angrysoba said:
Huh? I’m pointing out that you and just about everyone else already uses “they” as a singular gender neutral pronoun, at least in some cases, so it is already easier to use than “it” which almost nobody does. In other words, “they“ has a stronger case than “it” because it is already often used naturally (despite your initial denials) even by people who think it would involve “changing the meaning of words”. No change is necessary as can be observed by the fact you already use it. So introducing “it” is already down a point.

Then, in addition to being used naturally, “they” is less offensive to the snowflakes than “it”. Unless you see triggering the snowflakes as a goal, causing less offense rather than more is usually preferable. That puts “it” down another point against “they”.

In other words, your proposal for using “it” instead of “they” has no linguistic basis nor does it have any social benefit and this doesn’t need to be taken seriously.
Click to expand...

Excellent. You finally get it. Words have little inherent meaning and can easily be redefined, or not, to suit whatever purpose a particular group of zealots wants to support. Some will henceforth use they exclusively to reference third person singular. Most people will not. In fact the vast majority of people on this planet will never be aware that these discussions, suggestion, and proposals even exist.
 
Steve said:
Excellent. You finally get it.
Click to expand...

Nope. You have not succeeded in making any kind of point that I can see. Are you now saying you were trolling with your "suggestion" that "it" be used as a third-person gender-neutral pronoun? I mean, it was pretty obvious you were arguing in bad faith, so I am confused about what you think you have achieved.

Steve said:
Words have little inherent meaning and can easily be redefined, or not, to suit whatever purpose a particular group of zealots wants to support. Some will henceforth use they exclusively to reference third person singular. Most people will not.
Click to expand...

I doubt anyone will do use "they" exclusively for that purpose. They will also use it for groups as well. As for most people will not, I wouldn't be so sure. Even you use "they" for third person singular. Most people do.
 
angrysoba said:
What sounds unnatural? Well, saying "If Steve wants it, they can have it." People get confused with that. Who is they?
Click to expand...
It sounds less and less unnatural the more people say it. It is both easier to say, and easier to hear, with practice. Listen to people in the nonbinary community who use they/them on a regular basis and you will hear no confusion or hesitation of any kind.

Emily's Cat said:
Sure, because "ass" is, in and of itself intended as an offensive term. On the other hand, if I call you "wolli" as a term of familiarity and you get offended by it, that's totally on you. If you call me "kitty" and I get offended, that's on me. I might ask that you not do so for whatever reason, but the term "kitty" (or "wolli") isn't inherently offensive.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure that's the best analogy because I have actively asked and/or suggested that people call me wolli. No-one asks to be called an ass.
 
My problem with they them in 2 simple sentences.
John Paul and a Harry were talking. Harry got upset because they were picking on them so they left.
Who did what?
 
John and Paul were picking on Harry, so Harry left.

Alternatively, John and Paul might have left, but you'd need to provide more context for me to know that. And that's the rub. It requires more context which the person saying what actually happened has to supply.

We're already accustomed to speaking and writing so as to be clear and unambiguous. Why is this different? We're already accustomed to asking for more information if what is being supplied is unclear. Why is this different?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom