• 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.

Moderated Using wrong pronouns= violence??

d4m10n said:
You are assuming that pronouns must to refer to gender rather than sex, and that the moral offense of misgendering happens whenever someone fails to respect someone else's internal sense of self. Their argument is that pronouns referred to sex for quite a few generations prior to our fairly recent reconceptualization around gender identity, and that they haven't yet been persuaded to convert to the new usage. You can try to persuade them if you want, but calling them out on the sin of misgendering is just assuming what you need to prove.
Click to expand...

too many of the pronoun obsessed are psychotic, i'm not going to try and persuade them to do anything. i want nothing to do with them. i'm saying if someone corrects you and you continue to do what you're doing it is on purpose. you know they consider it offensive, you know it bothers them, so don't act like you're not and just own it. these lbgt activists might be a little off base with some things, and whiney and unrealistic, but at least they're not being dishonest.
 
dirtywick said:
too many of the pronoun obsessed are psychotic, i'm not going to try and persuade them to do anything.
Click to expand...
Strange thread to weigh in on, if that's your take.

dirtywick said:
i'm saying if someone corrects you and you continue to do what you're doing it is on purpose.
Click to expand...
If someone corrects you by saying that psychic readings are real and helpful, and you persist in saying they are unreal and unhelpful, then you are doing so on purpose. The question isn't settled by either side taking offense.

ETA: To be clear, the question I'm getting at here (raised by the OP, IMO) is whether pronouns should be taken to refer to sex (objective) or gender (subjective). We cannot answer it by saying that the opposition is hurting someone's feelings.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
Strange thread to weigh in on, if that's your take.
Click to expand...

not really, i'm here for the absurdity of people that are threatened by a college student web page on being nice to other students

If someone corrects you by saying that psychic readings are real and helpful, and you persist in saying they are unreal and unhelpful, then you are doing so on purpose. The question isn't settled by either side taking offense.

ETA: To be clear, the question I'm getting at here (raised by the OP, IMO) is whether pronouns should be taken to refer to sex (objective) or gender (subjective). We cannot answer it by saying that the opposition is hurting someone's feelings.
Click to expand...

yeah, of course i am doing that on purpose. i'm not trying to pretend otherwise, you are. you want to offend them and them to like you for it. just own it.
 
dirtywick said:
you want to offend them and them to like you for it.
Click to expand...
I don't particularly want to offend anyone & you're being a bit ******** by assuming I am aiming to give offense.

Once again, the question I'm getting at here (raised by the OP, IMO) is whether pronouns should be taken to refer to sex (objective) or gender (subjective).

Taking offense, on either side, doesn't help us find an answer.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
I don't particularly want to offend anyone & you're being a bit ******** by assuming I am aiming to give offense.
Click to expand...

i'm not assuming your aim. i'm telling you they're offended when you deliberately misgender them. i know you think they shouldn't for whatever reason, but you know how they will feel about it because they told you in advance. so no, you shouldn't be shocked people don't like that.

now i don't think there's anything wrong with some web page about helping people understand that and offering advice on how to navigate that without offending anyone, whether i agree or disagree with the concept. looking at that advice page like it's an imminent threat of violence, oppression, free speech, socialism, fascism, grooming, all the ridiculous things that were said like, i'm supposed to take that seriously? lol no


Once again, the question I'm getting at here (raised by the OP, IMO) is whether pronouns should be taken to refer to sex (objective) or gender (subjective).

Taking offense, on either side, doesn't help us find an answer.
Click to expand...

ok, you can ask that question all you want. i'm making pretty specific points on related topics also raised in the OP and never even attempted to even address that question.
 
d4m10n said:
Once again, the question I'm getting at here (raised by the OP, IMO) is whether pronouns should be taken to refer to sex (objective) or gender (subjective).
Click to expand...
'He' and 'she' in English always refer to "natural gender", which is something like perception of sex. Our perceptions of sex are influenced by all sorts of phenomena beyond sex itself, so I'd put it in the gender category. People tend to view dogs as male, such that we often just assume they're male until shown otherwise. That doesn't really happen with cats. There are presumably some cultural biases at work.

I also wouldn't say that sex is objective and gender is subjective. Instead I'd say that sex is biological while gender is social, cultural, and behavioral. There are surely facts about things like division of labor in a given society.
 
Hercules56 said:
No One can accuse you of violence or bigotry if you just use their chosen name of a transgender person.
Click to expand...

If Hercules56 consistently uses proper names where pronouns would be more appropriate, the odd usage will stick out. Especially if Hercules56 *only* slips into that odd usage when addressing trans people.

And when people notice Hercules56's convoluted usage, they may wonder; "Why does Hercules56 refuse to use pronouns? Why only certain pronouns for certain people? Why does Hercules56 go to such lengths in those cases?" And if a reasonable answer is not forthcoming, people may very well accuse Hercules56 of being a bigot.

Hercules56 is not being nearly as clever nor subtle as Hercules56 thinks Hercules56 is being.
 
Even before the trans-right movement we had problems in CS with usually an employee mistaking and calling people sir instead of ma'am or vice versa. I just don't see how these pronoun activists that are absolutely foaming about their right to call people like they want, have any way of assuring is the woman(or man) in question actually born as the same sex or gender and not deserving of insults or a transgendered person that needs to be ridiculed and insulted.

Or are you going around asking for birth certs from people? Or using some archaic logic as to "wears pants + short hair = He"??

I mean I would hazard a guess that with that amount of social acumen, handling interactions with trans-people is not the first thing on the list for you to work on.
 
Last edited:
Summary thus far as I see it:

  1. A link to a student website that dares to suggest treating people respectfully with a bit bad wording (not a crime)
  2. Big righteous outrage on "how the translobby or whatever" is trying to limit peoples right to make fools outta themselves
  3. Outright lies as "predictions" about transpeople and community goals without ANY collaborating evidence (Still waiting for any links with proof of ANY legislative or policy initiatives on law changes where the right to make a fool outta yourself is being threatened)
  4. Reacting to the lies as "we are being oppressed" + We have the absolute right to be dumb*sses" and actually proceeding to prove that point.
  5. Starting to insult people as snowflakes to get a reaction. The biggest noise about the pronouns is still unsurprisingly from the people who maintain the stand that they have the right to call anyone as they feel like - Which is not even argued.. It is however pointed out several times that they cannot expect to be treated with respect if they don't extend respect to others and this is really what seems to flip them off - what was the snowflake definition again??

Or am I off here?
 
Blank said:
[*]Outright lies as "predictions" about transpeople and community goals without ANY collaborating evidence (Still waiting for any links with proof of ANY legislative or policy initiatives on law changes where the right to make a fool outta yourself is being threatened)
Click to expand...

Does the Civil Rights Act count for you?

“The Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 expressly prohibits workplace discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. In 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Title VII’s prohibition against sex discrimination includes discrimination based on an employee’s gender identity or sexual orientation. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's technical assistance publication Protections Against Employment Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity considers the use of pronouns or names that are inconsistent with an individual’s gender identity as unlawful harassment. The EEOC guidance states, “intentionally and repeatedly using the wrong name and pronouns to refer to a transgender employee could contribute to an unlawful hostile work environment” and is a violation of Title VII.”

https://dpcpsi.nih.gov/sgmro/gender...l to use someone's,, sex, and national origin.
 
lionking said:
Does the Civil Rights Act count for you?
Click to expand...

Relevance? The Act clearly defines WORKPLACE discrimination and harassment as scope. The underlying claim is that the goal is extending this to free speech area.
 
Blank said:
Relevance? The Act clearly defines WORKPLACE discrimination and harassment as scope. The underlying claim is that the goal is extending this to free speech area.
Click to expand...

Why did I know you would dismiss this?

You asked for proof of ANY legislation or policy. I provided it.
 
lionking said:
You asked for proof of ANY legislation or policy. I provided it.
Click to expand...
Given that Title VII does not explicitly ban employment discrimination on the basis of gender identity, and that no legal controversy has yet emerged about whether or not misgendering alone entails such discrimination, you haven't in fact provided that proof.
 
mumblethrax said:
Given that Title VII does not explicitly ban employment discrimination on the basis of gender identity, and that no legal controversy has yet emerged about whether or not misgendering alone entails such discrimination, you haven't in fact provided that proof.
Click to expand...

Your zealotry is admirable.
 
lionking said:
Very funny. I’m not the one ignoring uncomfortable facts.
Click to expand...
That's exactly what you're doing. Rather than dealing with the fact that what you posted is not in fact proof of what you claimed it was, you've decided to engage in name calling.

It's embarrassingly puerile.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom