Moderated Using wrong pronouns= violence??

[Steve]

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.






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.

It seems likely that the use of pronouns is evolving, to some degree at least, in English speaking societies. Whether this is occurring in "society at large" IMO remains to be seen. I have never in person encountered a person who makes a point of using non-gendered pronouns. If I was not reading such interesting discussions on these boards I might be completely ignorant of the fact that this is an important issue for some people.

 

[Thermal]

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

Ok but I didn't mean that historically. I'm not pulling up cave paintings or hieroglyphics either.

 

[varwoche]

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.

Personally I have no problem defaulting in that way. I don't see that as being rude/insensitive.

I've avoided threads like this due to toxicity. I'm ignorant of certain basics, such as the definition of "trans person" and Google hasn't been particularly helpful. Does trans include people who have not undergone medical transition?

 

[LondonJohn]

It seems likely that the use of pronouns is evolving, to some degree at least, in English speaking societies. Whether this is occurring in "society at large" IMO remains to be seen. I have never in person encountered a person who makes a point of using non-gendered pronouns. If I was not reading such interesting discussions on these boards I might be completely ignorant of the fact that this is an important issue for some people.

Well yes, but it's (for rather obvious reasons) an important issue for the very small proportion of transgender individuals in society - and this very small proportion is probably why it's only rarely encountered in day-to-day life for most people. And conversely, it appears to be irrationally important for some cisgender people to oppose the use of gendered pronouns for this small proportion of transgender individuals. Heaven knows why.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Ok but I didn't mean that historically. I'm not pulling up cave paintings

Everygrug should know ogg's grammar, whether grunk went to a fancy cave school or not.

 

[Hercules56]

I think we can all agree that simple use of the wrong pronoun is not an act of violence.

 

[LondonJohn]

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.

So you appear to believe that it's "fair enough" for you to 1) make your own conclusion that pronouns should be strictly matched to biological sex, 2) use this to refuse transgender people's requests to use pronouns matching their trans gender, and 3) not see any legitimate offence in your actions?

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

Your use of the word "bandwagon" rather gives you away, I'm afraid. And I have no idea what you're talking about when you refer to "linguistic shift".

 

[Hercules56]

Personally I have no problem defaulting in that way. I don't see that as being rude/insensitive.

I've avoided threads like this due to toxicity. I'm ignorant of certain basics, such as the definition of "trans person" and Google hasn't been particularly helpful. Does trans include people who have not undergone medical transition?

Yes, anyone who decides that they were born X but choose to live as Y, is considered "trans". Doesn't matter how they dress or look.

 

[Steve]

Personally I have no problem defaulting in that way. I don't see that as being rude/insensitive.

I've avoided threads like this due to toxicity. I'm ignorant of certain basics, such as the definition of "trans person" and Google hasn't been particularly helpful. Does trans include people who have not undergone medical transition?

For the purposes of this thread I have assumed that it is purely a matter of the personal identity of any person referred to as trans. No medical transition required. I further assume that anyone who has undergone medical transition would be rather proudly adopting the appearance and identity of their transitioned body and their choice of identity would not be ambiguous. (to put it another way, a male surgically transitioning to female but wishing to still be referred to as "he" would be quite odd).

 

[Thermal]

Personally I have no problem defaulting in that way. I don't see that as being rude/insensitive.

I've avoided threads like this due to toxicity. I'm ignorant of certain basics, such as the definition of "trans person" and Google hasn't been particularly helpful. Does trans include people who have not undergone medical transition?

Great question. I would say yes, simply because not all trans folk have the significant financial means.

I also keep the distinction between transsexual and transgender. A transsexual (someone who feels like they are a guy just as much as I do, but looks down to see boobs and stuff), I have a world of sympathy for. Man, that's gotta be disorienting. And I will call them by whatever helps them to feel comfortable.

But when the 106 or whatever they are up to "genders" start getting bantered about...maybe I'm just old but my fingers start a-drumming.

 

[angrysoba]

Ok but I didn't mean that historically. I'm not pulling up cave paintings or hieroglyphics either.

But really I doubt that singular gender-neutral he is anywhere near as common as using they. In fact I would think it is only through an act of will that it is used in certain kinds of formal writing or by those who had been taught it was proper. Pretty much everyone uses third person singular they. This thread itself is littered with examples by at least one person who is adamant about not using it.

 

[mumblethrax]

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".

I don't see why you think those occasions are highly infrequent. They're frequent enough that tastemakers have noticed the hole they leave in the English lexicon and have been trying to plug it for centuries. "The UPS driver must have stopped by, they left a package for you."

In any case, everyone seems to think the rule in English is that you can only use singular they when you don't know the gender of the antecedent. This isn't the case.

The very first known instance of singular they in the English language corpus, from 1375:

Hastely hiȝed eche...þei neyȝþed so neiȝh...þere william & his worþi lef were liand i-fere. / Each man hurried...till they drew near...where William and his darling were lying together

Shakespeare, in A Comedy of Errors:

There's not a man I meet but doth salute me
As if I were their well-acquainted friend

Sean Lennon, using woke they to say he doesn't want to date transwomen:

Any girl who is interested must simply be born female and between the ages of 18 and 45. They must have an IQ above 130 and they must be honest.

The actual restriction is that you can't use it with specific antecedents. Which is why "Dave came over last night and they drank all my beer" sounds weird to many/most of us. Because Dave is a particular person.

 

[Steve]

Well yes, but it's (for rather obvious reasons) an important issue for the very small proportion of transgender individuals in society - and this very small proportion is probably why it's only rarely encountered in day-to-day life for most people. And conversely, it appears to be irrationally important for some cisgender people to oppose the use of gendered pronouns for this small proportion of transgender individuals. Heaven knows why.

Of course. That is why I think that the pronoun changes in "society at large" will change very slowly. It is not even an issue, at this point, that most people are aware of.

 

[angrysoba]

Yes, anyone who decides that they were born X but choose to live as Y, is considered "trans". Doesn't matter how they dress or look.

Just can’t help it.

 

[Lothian]

I think we can all agree that simple use of the wrong pronoun is not an act of violence.

I am not sure. It was said by a poster earlier that bring asked to use a different pronoun than they see as applying is an act of oppression and abusive. They may consider the hurt they personally feel from the existence of transgender people to be violence.

 

[d4m10n]

So you appear to believe that it's "fair enough" for you to 1) make your own conclusion that pronouns should be strictly matched to biological sex

I never made such a claim. My position is that people can feel free to use pronouns to refer to apparent sex (if that is obvious) or to gender identity (if it has been mentioned). I think people tend to do the former rather than the latter pretty much of the time, because there is little need to delve into questions of gender identity when secondary sexual characteristics happen to match up to gender expression. That said, I'm not making an argument in favor of strictly adhering to either approach.

So you appear to believe that it's "fair enough" for you to...2) use this to refuse transgender people's requests to use pronouns matching their trans gender

I never said this. There might be some circumstances in which requests ought to be refused, however.

So you appear to believe that it's "fair enough" for you to...3) not see any legitimate offence in your actions?

I make no judgement on whether offence is legitimate or not. It is an involuntary emotional response, when unfeigned.

Your use of the word "bandwagon" rather gives you away, I'm afraid.

I certainly hope so. Specifically, it gives me away as someone who can distinguish between an appeal to majority or authority and an actual argument.

 

[Thermal]

Yes, anyone who decides that they were born X but choose to live as Y, is considered "trans". Doesn't matter how they dress or look.

Not sure it's a choice for many. More like hardwired. Do you think people choose their sexual orientation too?

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

I think we can all agree that simple use of the wrong pronoun is not an act of violence.

If it is a singular mistake, I agree.
If on the other had after being corrected you keep misusing the pronouns on purpose, I disagree with you. Verbal abuse is still violence imo.

 

[The_Animus]

being just as worried about snowflake behavior as the snowflakes is the most snowflake thing you could do.

you guys don't understand, you can just not do that. use whatever pronouns you want. these are activists making mild suggestions, you don't have to listen to them. you want to deliberately misgender people because it makes you feel comfortable about the world, which is fine. and then you want to have them like you for it and it bothers you that they don't, that's where you've lost.

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?

I think these two post are a good summary. These threads all have the same few people who are uncomfortable with trans people, want to be able to dehumanize them without consequence, and then play the victim when there are consequences, whether real or imagined.

And it's just so transparent

 

[Upchurch]

I think we can all agree that simple use of the wrong pronoun is not an act of violence.

I think we can agree it is not an act of physical violence, but I haven’t seen anything that indicates that is what the author of the article was referring to, nor have I seen the claim disproven for all other forms of violence.

Care to clarify?