Moderated Using wrong pronouns= violence??

[Emily's Cat]

If it were metaphorical violence, does that, in any way, invalidate the CU Boulder statement or justify Hercules56's claims?

Yes, it does invalidate CU Boulder's statement.

A metaphorical death doesn't produce a certificate, doesn't get a memorial service, and doesn't entitle one's survivors to collect life insurance.

Metaphorical violence isn't actually violence. It's a phrase intended to evoke an image and to instigate an emotional response.

 

[Upchurch]

Yes, it does invalidate CU Boulder's statement.

A metaphorical death doesn't produce a certificate, doesn't get a memorial service, and doesn't entitle one's survivors to collect life insurance.

Skip. No one said anything about death. That's nothing but straw man.

Metaphorical violence isn't actually violence. It's a phrase intended to evoke an image and to instigate an emotional response.

Okay, you spend some time catching up with the thread and the many, many, many, many links and definitions that prove everything you said is rubbish, then let's talk.


Also, pro-tip, the forum has a very useful multi-quote function. There is no need to respond to every post individually.

 

[dirtywick]

I mean, you could always address whether people should be fired for consistently using pronouns to denote sex rather than gender.

are you asking whether or not an employer should have the discretion on whether that's acceptable conduct at work or not? maybe employers, and normal people as well, don't want people making the workplace about controversial political statements

 

[quadraginta]

There is some precedent

No idea is there any update on that case.

Several other examples of bullying and social isolation and stigmation causing physical damage can be found, but this was by far the most interesting one since causation could be established so well that there was a sentence.

I brought this case up in a post a couple of days ago. It didn't seem to attract much interest. Certainly not from Herc96, whose post below was what prompted me to mention it.

Give us an example of a context in which mere words should lead to a charge of assault & battery.

Highlighting is mine. To stress that the conditions proposed were quite specific, and certainly met by the example offered.

How about where they actually do lead to a conviction for Involuntary Manslaughter. With the defendant receiving a 2 1/2 year sentence* after the verdict and sentence were upheld by the State Supreme Court, and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal?

And this wasn't even about insults. The defendant (claimed they) thought they were helping the victim.

Words can have consequences. Even legal consequences.

ETA: (They were only to serve 15 months actually behind bars, with rest of the sentence suspended, and they got out after a bit over 11 months with time off for good behavior.)

This should also provide you with your needed update.

 

[mumblethrax]

Words can absolutely have more than one meaning; words can have figurative meanings in addition to literal meanings.

The literal meaning of the word violence is one that includes physical action. All non-physical meanings of the word violence are figurative in nature.

Seems odd that dictionaries wouldn't mark out literal and figurative meanings if this were true.

(It isn't true.)

 

[Darat]

Words can absolutely have more than one meaning; words can have figurative meanings in addition to literal meanings.

The literal meaning of the word violence is one that includes physical action. All non-physical meanings of the word violence are figurative in nature.

Did you not bother reading the actual link?

 

[Upchurch]

i don't believe that anyone has ever called emily's cat a gestator or whatever insane thing no normal person anywhere is doing. it's a fictional problem.

Just like CU Boulder never suggested using the wrong pronouns meant physical violence. The whole premise of the thread is a fictional problem based on a misunderstanding of how a single word has been used for at least 50 years, if not centuries.

It’s all a fictional problem to justify outrage at a school wanting to protect a minority of students, faculty, and visitors on its campus from harassment and bullying.

 

[Samson]

Here is a video from Vienna.
At precisely minute 21 a person emerges to discuss pronouns and it is completely not orchestrated.

https://www.youtube.com/live/pocfRKDk1-w?feature=share

I will be honest and say I am part way through and enjoying the dissertation.
Totally essential to understand how these events find random contributors.
In New Zealand there was orchestrated violence emanating from Michael Wood, a cabinet minister, to prevent these people speaking.

 

[Upchurch]

Here is a video from Vienna.
At precisely minute 21 a person emerges to discuss pronouns and it is completely not orchestrated.

https://www.youtube.com/live/pocfRKDk1-w?feature=share

I will be honest and say I am part way through and enjoying the dissertation.
Totally essential to understand how these events find random contributors.
In New Zealand there was orchestrated violence emanating from Michael Wood, a cabinet minister, to prevent these people speaking.

We talked about gendered nouns in German, specifically, but also English. It only goes to prove that language is based more on gender than sex.

 

[Samson]

We talked about gendered nouns in German, specifically, but also English. It only goes to prove that language is based more on gender than sex.

We did? I must have been in a different hall at the conference.
Did you listen to all 4 minutes of this contribution?
If so, how do you counter by describing a better world with geological layers of pronouns?

 

[Upchurch]

We did? I must have been in a different hall at the conference.

We, participants in the thread, discussed the nature of gender in language, specifically in the case of English and German, earlier in the thread, yes. I have no idea whether you, specifically, were paying attention.

Did you listen to all 4 minutes of this contribution?
If so, how do you counter by describing a better world with geological layers of pronouns?

Language is already a mess of genders. Why are ships referred to as "she" in English? I guarantee you will have a difficult time measuring the size of their gametes.

 

[Samson]

We, participants in the thread, discussed the nature of gender in language, specifically in the case of English and German, earlier in the thread, yes. I have no idea whether you, specifically, were paying attention.



Language is already a mess of genders. Why are ships referred to as "she" in English? I guarantee you will have a difficult time measuring the size of their gametes.

I am thinking.
Philosophers, linguists, anthropoligists, socioligists and psycholigists revel in the miasmic confusion, but the functioning world should look to aviation protocols.
Let pronouns be as strictly regulated.
Here endeth the first lesson.

 

[lobosrul5]

I am thinking.
Philosophers, linguists, anthropoligists, socioligists and psycholigists revel in the miasmic confusion, but the functioning world should look to aviation protocols.
Let pronouns be as strictly regulated.
Here endeth the first lesson.

Pronouns are not used in aviation English in order to avoid any confusion about what is being referred to. So, I suppose that is a viable solution.

 

[Samson]

Pronouns are not used in aviation English in order to avoid any confusion about what is being referred to. So, I suppose that is a viable solution.

I am unsure that you agree?

 

[lobosrul5]

I am unsure that you agree?

Depends upon what you mean.

Hypothetical, at a place of.business.

Worker A: I'm now transgender. My pronoun is "she" even though I was born male
Worker B: Yeah I'm still going to call you "he". I don't agree with all this trans stuff.
Worker A: I'm offended and insulted.

Boss: just refer to her by name only.

 

[Upchurch]

I am thinking.
Philosophers, linguists, anthropoligists, socioligists and psycholigists revel in the miasmic confusion, but the functioning world should look to aviation protocols.
Let pronouns be as strictly regulated.
Here endeth the first lesson.

Upchurch thinks Samson has not thought this through very well. What if Upchurch and Samson were talking about an unknown person or persons. By this system, Upchurch and Samson could only refer to unknown person or persons as “unknown person or persons”. And if Upchurch and Samson are discussing multiple groups of unknown person or persons, Upchurch and Sampson’s sentences would become even more arduous.

All this to avoid being polite to transgendered people.

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

I wonder if the same discontent and incredulity occurred when men were warned against calling female coworkers "sweetheart," and "honey." I bet it evoked similar reactions and similar arguments, despite the differences, with feminists replacing trans people as the villains.

They say history rhymes. I feel like that's probably happening here.

 

[lobosrul5]

I wonder if the same discontent and incredulity occurred when men were warned against calling female coworkers "sweetheart," and "honey." I bet it evoked similar reactions and similar arguments, despite the differences, with feminists replacing trans people as the villains.

They say history rhymes. I feel like that's probably happening here.

I was thinking of this very subject a couple of days ago. If this forum existed in the 1960s or 70's those are the arguments we'd be having. Why is a female co-worker upset I call her "sweety". Why do her rights exceed my 1st amendment rights to call her "sweety". Besides which I don't actually mean insult by it.

1990's, it'd be about not being allowed to call a gay co-worker faggot etc.

 

[Shalamar]

I was thinking of this very subject a couple of days ago. If this forum existed in the 1960s or 70's those are the arguments we'd be having. Why is a female co-worker upset I call her "sweety". Why do her rights exceed my 1st amendment rights to call her "sweety". Besides which I don't actually mean insult by it.

1990's, it'd be about not being allowed to call a gay co-worker faggot etc.

"I have the right to use whatever pronouns I want on you. Just toughen up, grow a thicker skin, because I won't be oppressed! HOW DARE YOU CALL ME THAT!"

It's not about protecting anyone. It's all about harming the transgendered.

 

[theprestige]

It's not about protecting anyone. It's all about harming the transgendered.

I see we're retreating en masse from the idea that misgendering people is a kind of violence.

So... what harm, exactly?

Where are the media reports of people alleging harm?

Where are the criminal cases of people alleging harm?

Where are the civil cases of people alleging harm?

Why don't we see any of the above for similar acts of rudeness, like calling women "sweetie", or calling a man a son of a bitch?