Moderated Using wrong pronouns= violence??

[Thermal]

I call Jim a he, because he is a man.
I call Sue a she, because she is a woman.
I call Terry a they, because they are....neither.

It just feels like a backhanded insult. Reappropriating the plural even makes you change the "is" to the plural "are", because it sounds weird if you don't, which should be a tip that it's not a logical substitution.

 

[LondonJohn]

You are claiming you are being oppressed and abused because they simply ask to be referred to as he or she and you think they are the snowflake, Sheesh .

I will gender someone but if they tell me they prefer me to use the other term I will do my best to remember just as when Dave says please call me David or Susan wants to be called Susie. It is not about what I think, it is about bring polite and making others feel good about themselves. Being kind shouldn't make you feel bad.

Ah but if one has a zealous animus against transgender identity, all this sort of logic, reason and decency flies out of the window.

 

[varwoche]

I refuse to refer to one person as "they". Its plural.

Language evolves.

 

[angrysoba]

I refuse to refer to one person as "they". Its plural.

No One can accuse you of violence or bigotry if you just use their chosen name of a transgender person.

As I said I have found the perfect solution to this problem. Simply refer to a transgender person by their name. Not any pronouns. Problem solved.

Okay well then I guess it would be best for people simply to refer to everyone by their name and not a pronoun. That way no one can claim violence has been done against them or harassment.

Conservatives aren't the ones melting like snowflakes when their preferred pronoun is ignored. And then claiming to be a victim of "violence". Cuz they feewings hurt.

It seems you refer to a lot of individuals as they, them and their without even noticing. How are you going to refuse if you are doing it anyway without realizing it?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I call Jim a he, because he is a man.
I call Sue a she, because she is a woman.
I call Terry a they, because they are....neither.

It just feels like a backhanded insult. Reappropriating the plural even makes you change the "is" to the plural "are", because it sounds weird if you don't, which should be a tip that it's not a logical substitution.

Elementary school teachers have been losing the "him or her, not they" war since forever. People use the singular they all the time, acting like it's unnatural is simply ridiculous.

 

[Thermal]

Preferred pronouns are the real snowflakery.

With very rare exceptions, people code as male or female to others. We have pronouns for that.

When I refer to a male as "he", I'm not referring to how he envisions himself inside his own head. I'm referring to how I envision him in my head. And how you envision him in your head. Even if you acquiesce to his preferred contra-sex-coded pronouns, you're still aware of how he actually codes. Otherwise, you wouldn't have to think about preferred versus actual pronouns. You'd just use the one that's already in your head, alongside your own sense of him as male.

Demanding that you dismiss your own sense of the world, and replace it with theirs, is an act of oppression. At this stage in the preferred pronoun debate, it's de facto gaslighting, an act of abuse. Trans rights activists have gotten the whole business of pronouns ass over teakettle. They're trying to colonize your mind with perceived realities that you know aren't true. And you're helping them do it.

Not sure about this. Are we supposed label them based on how we envision them, or by what they actually *are*? I want to call them what they *are*, regardless of what I or they subjectively envision.

 

[mumblethrax]

Language evolves.

Or, slightly more accurately, language evolved. Like, 700 years ago. We’ve been using singular they longer than we’ve been using singular you.

 

[Steve]

It seems you refer to a lot of individuals as they, them and their without even noticing. How are you going to refuse if you are doing it anyway without realizing it?

A point well made.

Although, to be pedantic, the word "they" does not appear in any of the quotes you used.

 

[LondonJohn]

Ah. I would call that politeness. I guess we have very differing definitions.

Yes. And I wonder what theprestige would do if, for example, he saw the person wearing the baseball cap in the centre of this photo, and "coded" the person "in his head" as cis man male (and thus he/him pronouns). In theprestige's worldview, presumably the protestations of the person that she was a (cis) woman female - which, in fact, she is - would count for nothing if his "internal coding" had already decided that she was a cis man male.....

 

[varwoche]

I call Jim a he, because he is a man.
I call Sue a she, because she is a woman.
I call Terry a they, because they are....neither.

It just feels like a backhanded insult. Reappropriating the plural even makes you change the "is" to the plural "are", because it sounds weird if you don't, which should be a tip that it's not a logical substitution.

Since when is language logical?

I'm highly dubious that "Terry" will be insulted when referred to as they.

 

[angrysoba]

A point well made.

Although, to be pedantic, the word "they" does not appear in any of the quotes you used.

It does in the last quote, and those have only been taken from posts in the last few pages. I would bet that Hercules has used the singular "they" more times than he's had hot dinners (it's not wise for snowflakes to have hot dinners. )

 

[Thermal]

Elementary school teachers have been losing the "him or her, not they" war since forever. People use the singular they all the time, acting like it's unnatural is simply ridiculous.

On those highly infrequent occasions when you are referring to a person you don't know the sex of, then yeah, you can drop a "they" placeholder in (although deferring to a generic "he" historically has been used just as often). But when you do know, it screams "other" to my ear, which is kind of worse than a generic "he".

 

[angrysoba]

On those highly infrequent occasions when you are referring to a person you don't know the sex of, then yeah, you can drop a "they" placeholder in (although deferring to a generic "he" historically has been used just as often). But when you do know, it screams "other" to my ear, which is kind of worse than a generic "he".

This is "historically" back to front. Using "he" to refer to unknown persons is in fact a modern contrivance.

This use of singular they had emerged by the 14th century, about a century after the plural they.[4][5][2] It has been commonly employed in everyday English ever since and has gained currency in official contexts. Singular they has been criticised since the mid-18th century by prescriptive commentators who consider it an error.[6]

 

[Steve]

Not sure about this. Are we supposed label them based on how we envision them, or by what they actually *are*? I want to call them what they *are*, regardless of what I or they subjectively envision.

Personal view - For the vast majority of people I encounter casually I have very little interest in what they *are* and even less interest in finding out. I conduct myself on the basis that most strangers have the same attitude toward me. For the exceedingly rare occasion that I might engage in something more than a one-off trivial encounter with a person to whom identity matters, and who makes their preferences known, I would quite willingly go along to their wishes. I have yet to encounter such a situation. What keeps me interested, and provides some education, in this thread are the views of those for whom encounters with people of varied chosen (if that is the correct word) identities are apparently somewhat more common.

 

[Thermal]

Since when is language logical?

I'm highly dubious that "Terry" will be insulted when referred to as they.

I've heard "they" used in two situations IRL: some of my daughter's friends went through a short "non-binary" period when they looked and acted entirely cishet but chose to describe themselves otherwise (they dropped it fairly quick), and here on the ISF. On the forum, it is occasionally used because s/he is not known, but far more often to be insulting.

Skeptical? When the subjects in any story are discussed anywhere in these hallowed threads, do posters refer to males as he and females as she, or do they walk it like they talk it and refer to the actors as they? I doubt their gender ID was pre-determined, but it's a default that goes unnoticed.

 

[LondonJohn]

I don't particularly want to offend anyone & you're being a bit ******** by assuming I am aiming to give offense.

Uhh.... if people tell you they're going to be offended if you continue to misgender them, then any continued misgendering by you is - by definition - going to be an instance of you wanting to offend those people and you aiming to give offence.

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)

All current guidelines make it pretty clear that society at large is going with gender-based pronouns. But by all means, launch your own campaign to insist on biological-sex-based pronouns if it's that important to you.

 

[Steve]

It does in the last quote, and those have only been taken from posts in the last few pages. I would bet that Hercules has used the singular "they" more times than he's had hot dinners (it's not wise for snowflakes to have hot dinners. )

Ahh, you are correct of course. In my mind I substituted the correct word "their". Nobody ever accused me of precise reading.

 

[d4m10n]

Uhh.... if people tell you they're going to be offended if you continue to misgender them, then any continued misgendering by you is - by definition - going to be an instance of you wanting to offend those people and you aiming to give offence.

If someone was aiming to use pronouns to refer to sex rather than gender (how they were generally used until very recently) then the offense taken is a byproduct of that distinct aim.

All current guidelines make it pretty clear that society at large is going with gender-based pronouns.

A bandwagon isn't an argument. The question remains why we should make this linguistic shift.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

 

[angrysoba]

Be shameful if someone uses this new rule to justify attacking someone with violence, because they were misgendered. Hopefully this policy will be removed quick.

Oh look! From the very first page as well.

 

[Thermal]

Personal view - For the vast majority of people I encounter casually I have very little interest in what they *are* and even less interest in finding out. I conduct myself on the basis that most strangers have the same attitude toward me. For the exceedingly rare occasion that I might engage in something more than a one-off trivial encounter with a person to whom identity matters, and who makes their preferences known, I would quite willingly go along to their wishes. I have yet to encounter such a situation. What keeps me interested, and provides some education, in this thread are the views of those for whom encounters with people of varied chosen (if that is the correct word) identities are apparently somewhat more common.

Ok, I hear that. A related question I've asked before though, is to what degree to we entertain how someone else wants to be treated, when it contradicts reality? Is it just in their sex? How about race? If not, why not?

And of course, if I see myself in my own head as sexually irresistible, are the ladies obligated to humor me? If not, why not?