Moderated Using wrong pronouns= violence??

[TragicMonkey]

You could try making an argument without resorting to personal attacks, just to see how it feels.

That wasn't a personal attack, "some ordinary jerk" is a rhetorical usage referring to the democracy that is ordinary humans having discourse. I'm an ordinary jerk, you're an ordinary jerk, Sister Mary is an ordinary jerk with a funny title that's not worth getting in her face about. Unless she gets in your face because you called her "Miss Simpson" before you knew she were a nun and went by "Sister". The burden is on the individual with the request to make it known, then the burden of following it (or not) is on the other parties.

My point was and is that some people in this discussion take themselves to be far more important and influential than they are, thinking that their every word, every interaction means something SIGNIFICANT about vast Theories Of Things. "I can't call that lady 'she' because she might have had a penis when she was a fetus, and if I accede to her request to use 'she' then it will open the floodgates and destroy the totality of Western Enlightenment's honoring of Truth As A Virtue!!!" No, it's just going along with a harmless request to not make waves and cause upset to other people, something which is a founding principle and absolute necessity of civilization itself.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Being "polite" in this case reinforces an existing power structure, one which I don't particularly care to support. One needn't be famous or important in order to decide not to lend their own tiny bit of support to that specific hierarchy. It is a personal choice, one which I'd prefer to make without being pressured by the self-appointed enforcers of politeness and status quo.

"Take that, Ms Sakamoto! I'm keeping my shoes on in your house!"
"Well, he certainly showed me. What a hero! Makes Socrates look like a piker!"

 

[TragicMonkey]

My actual name is David, I feel bad about correcting people who say Dave.

Now I know I should punch them in the face when that happens.

If they keep doing it, on purpose, to make you angry, then yeah, maybe you should.

I'm a Michael who goes by Mike, but because corporate emails use full names people I'm talking to for the first time start off calling me Michael. And -- this will amaze the cantankerous sociopaths who post here-- when I politely specify I prefer being called Mike most people actually do it! And the ones who don't just forgot, and I don't take it personally! Not once has anyone demanded to see my birth certificate then refused to call me anything but the name Michael which is on there! And nobody's complained that my family all call me Michael even though I don't like anybody else to! That's an inconsistency that would surely get me challenged to hell and back on this board, for my blatant hypocrisy there.

 

[ahhell]

Being "polite" in this case reinforces an existing power structure, one which I don't particularly care to support. One needn't be famous or important in order to decide not to lend their own tiny bit of support to that specific hierarchy. It is a personal choice, one which I'd prefer to make without being pressured by the self-appointed enforcers of politeness and status quo.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

This is an argument that really hits my biases.

Its true that the things we call manners and politeness are mostly the conventions of the upper class.

It seems to me that the pronoun thing is basically that.

 

[ahhell]

If they keep doing it, on purpose, to make you angry, then yeah, maybe you should.

I'm a Michael who goes by Mike, but because corporate emails use full names people I'm talking to for the first time start off calling me Michael. And -- this will amaze the cantankerous sociopaths who post here-- when I politely specify I prefer being called Mike most people actually do it! And the ones who don't just forgot, and I don't take it personally! Not once has anyone demanded to see my birth certificate then refused to call me anything but the name Michael which is on there! And nobody's complained that my family all call me Michael even though I don't like anybody else to! That's an inconsistency that would surely get me challenged to hell and back on this board, for my blatant hypocrisy there.

Well, as a Mike you likely understand the issue of us Davids, there are thousands of you. Some go by mike, some go by Michael, its hard for others to keep track.

How do you know the difference between the guy that calls you Michael to annoy you and the guy that calls you Michael because he knows 10 other Michael/Mikes? Which should he punch in the face on account of the violence?

ETA: On a more real note, I legit feel like a jerk tellng people that they should call me david. How to the folks that say, "I'm a shir" or what ever novel pronoun they want not feel at least self conscious. It really strikes me as quite narcissistic.

 

[d4m10n]

Good copout if you get to define anyone being rude to you as a personal attack but you doing it to other people isn't.

Calling someone a jerk strikes me as a bit more of an attack than failing to use their preferred honorific, but whatever.

"Take that, Ms Sakamoto! I'm keeping my shoes on in your house!"

I didn't know we were actually in the House of God in this analogy.

My bad. [emoji120]

 

[Thermal]

That wasn't a personal attack, "some ordinary jerk" is a rhetorical usage referring to the democracy that is ordinary humans having discourse. I'm an ordinary jerk, you're an ordinary jerk, Sister Mary is an ordinary jerk with a funny title that's not worth getting in her face about. Unless she gets in your face because you called her "Miss Simpson" before you knew she were a nun and went by "Sister". The burden is on the individual with the request to make it known, then the burden of following it (or not) is on the other parties.

My point was and is that some people in this discussion take themselves to be far more important and influential than they are, thinking that their every word, every interaction means something SIGNIFICANT about vast Theories Of Things. "I can't call that lady 'she' because she might have had a penis when she was a fetus, and if I accede to her request to use 'she' then it will open the floodgates and destroy the totality of Western Enlightenment's honoring of Truth As A Virtue!!!" No, it's just going along with a harmless request to not make waves and cause upset to other people, something which is a founding principle and absolute necessity of civilization itself.

Ok. But don't that apply to the person announcing that they want to be called zhir, too? Or the laddie who is expected to ask if a lass is a man or woman?

I mean, gender would seem to be a fairly personal matter. Demanding that it be served on a plate upon introducing yourself could be making some unnecessary waves. If you think it's nobody's business, then what? Puts you on the spot and creates a kind of an elephant in the room kind of thing.

Something as personal as your own gender affiliation should not have a spotlight thrown on it against your will, methinks. If it is important to an individual to be referred to as "they", then they can bring that up on their own terms, not at UC Boulder's blanket instruction.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Well, as a Mike you likely understand the issue of us Davids, there are thousands of you. Some go by mike, some go by Michael, its hard for others to keep track.

How do you know the difference between the guy that calls you Michael to annoy you and the guy that calls you Michael because he knows 10 other Michael/Mikes?

I would judge by context, frequency, tone, appearance, manner, past history, attitude, and instinct. But that's because real life interactions don't happen in the vacuum of theoretical "but what ifs" that people posting on the internet appear to imagine can be used to determine courses of action.

Which should he punch in the face on account of the violence?

That would be up to the individual in question to decide.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Calling someone a jerk strikes me as a bit more of an attack than failing to use their preferred honorific, but whatever.

Substitute the word "dude", then. Does it alter the meaning of what I said? No. But it would deprive you of an excuse to ignore the point.

I didn't know we were actually in the House of God in this analogy.

You're not. You declared a principle about defying conventional manners. In Ms Sakamoto's culture it is rude to keep one's shoes on in someone else's residence. Of course you are above such considerations and I theorized that you would defy Ms Sakamoto and keep your shoes on. Naturally she would form an opinion of this action. I believe she would regard you as a heroic champion of principle and invite you around more often, thinking you're Larry David.

 

[lobosrul5]

This is an argument that really hits my biases.

Its true that the things we call manners and politeness are mostly the conventions of the upper class.

It seems to me that the pronoun thing is basically that.

Wow you win. Yes only the nobility and landed gentry have any sort of manners. Only they say "please", "thank you", "excuse me", "sir", and "ma'am", or use silverware. The poor and middle classes burp in peoples faces, eat soup by cupping their hands, and never use any sort of polite form of address.

 

[JoeMorgue]

"Why won't anyone have a cIViL DeBAte with me about why I, a highly evolved rebel who is above petty human concerns, should care about other people?"

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Ok. But don't that apply to the person announcing that they want to be called zhir, too? Or the laddie who is expected to ask if a lass is a man or woman?



I mean, gender would seem to be a fairly personal matter. Demanding that it be served on a plate upon introducing yourself could be making some unnecessary waves. If you think it's nobody's business, then what? Puts you on the spot and creates a kind of an elephant in the room kind of thing.



Something as personal as your own gender affiliation should not have a spotlight thrown on it against your will, methinks. If it is important to an individual to be referred to as "they", then they can bring that up on their own terms, not at UC Boulder's blanket instruction.

How do we define "personal matter?"

I mean there are lots of aspects of my personality, facets of my identity as it were, that came about as result of my personal choices and growth. Yet I still dare say people generally find these things out about me in fairly short order, accept them, and move on.

There's certainly lots of times where a statement I've made lead to a question about my interests or values and I might offer a correction or amendment to the idea offered up, they nod and understand, or ask a few follow ups, and viola. We learned a little more about each other and nobody got angry at not having perfectly accurately assessed another person they just met on the first try.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Ok. But don't that apply to the person announcing that they want to be called zhir, too? Or the laddie who is expected to ask if a lass is a man or woman?

I mean, gender would seem to be a fairly personal matter. Demanding that it be served on a plate upon introducing yourself could be making some unnecessary waves. If you think it's nobody's business, then what? Puts you on the spot and creates a kind of an elephant in the room kind of thing.

Something as personal as your own gender affiliation should not have a spotlight thrown on it against your will, methinks. If it is important to an individual to be referred to as "they", then they can bring that up on their own terms, not at UC Boulder's blanket instruction.

I think it's reasonable to operate under the best information you have, then if you turn out to be wrong and are informed of that, to correct your course. Which in this means:

TM: Hey, dude, I like your Metallica shirt.
Looks Like Dude: Uh, actually I'm a girl.
TM: Oh, sorry! It's my cataracts. Hey, Mary, this is Looks Like Dude, she has the same Metallica shirt you do!

Instead of:

TM: Hey, dude, I like your Metallica shirt.
Looks Like Dude: Uh, actually I'm a girl.
TM: NO, YOU'RE NOT!!! Sex is not a social construct!! Hey, Mary, look at this guy! He's a lying liar with a PENIS! Peeeeeeeeeeenisssssss!!! Be sure he doesn't rape you to death in the LADIES' ROOM, where HE shouldn't be!

 

[JoeMorgue]

"Life is harder for me if I go into every interaction being as confrontational as possible. Why won't any body listen to me complain about how unfair this is for me?"

 

[tyr_13]

"Why won't anyone have a cIViL DeBAte with me about why I, a highly evolved rebel who is above petty human concerns, should care about other people?"

Listen, it's very important to have a Civil Debate^TM on why being only their being uncivil is vital to intellectual discourse. Such extreme incivility as any recourse for their incivility ruins Civil Debate^TM.


The other thing this all reminds me of is the indignation at referring to Dr. Jill Biden as Dr Jill Biden, because she's not a 'real doctor'. It is complete down to the prescriptivists thinking they're descriptivists and descriptivists thinking they're prescriptivists.

 

[lobosrul5]

I think it's reasonable to operate under the best information you have, then if you turn out to be wrong and are informed of that, to correct your course. Which in this means:

TM: Hey, dude, I like your Metallica shirt.
Looks Like Dude: Uh, actually I'm a girl.
TM: Oh, sorry! It's my cataracts. Hey, Mary, this is Looks Like Dude, she has the same Metallica shirt you do!

Instead of:

TM: Hey, dude, I like your Metallica shirt.
Looks Like Dude: Uh, actually I'm a girl.
TM: NO, YOU'RE NOT!!! Sex is not a social construct!! Hey, Mary, look at this guy! He's a lying liar with a PENIS! Peeeeeeeeeeenisssssss!!! Be sure he doesn't rape you to death in the LADIES' ROOM, where HE shouldn't be!

I have twice, in my life misgendered someone in person*, and been corrected. And its bordering on a 0% chance that either was trans. Given that I'm bordering on a recluse it probably happens much more to people with actual lives.

*a lot more than that on the phone and electronically

anyone want to take bets, on whether we have a certain poster, or two, come by later and tell us that they would be able to tell for certain the sex of your hypothetical Metallica fan. They can always tell, at least 99.999999999% of the time.

 

[Darat]

Being "polite" in this case reinforces an existing power structure, one which I don't particularly care to support. One needn't be famous or important in order to decide not to lend their own tiny bit of support to that specific hierarchy. It is a personal choice, one which I'd prefer to make without being pressured by the self-appointed enforcers of politeness and status quo.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

No it doesn't.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Well back to basics one of the big dividing lines is differing opinions as to how "vital" it is to know another persons gender in most social interactions.

I really think if we peel back the layers and pressure wash off all the semantics the greater divide here is less about defining genders and more about the importance of them in most social interactions.

 

[Hercules56]

"Officer, Officer, I need to report an act of violence done upon me!!!"

"Who hit you? Where were you hit?"

"Oh no, I wasn't hit. The guy misgendered me"




"Get the **** out of here, stop wasting my time."

 

[lobosrul5]

"Officer, Officer, I need to report an act of violence done upon me!!!"

"Who hit you? Where were you hit?"

"Oh no, I wasn't hit. The guy misgendered me"




"Get the **** out of here, stop wasting my time."

Yes, that is more or less accurate for how such a scenario would play out. What is your point?

ETA:

Student: "OFFICER OFFICER I KEPT CALLING MY PROFESSOR 'SIR' EVEN THOUGH THEY REPEATEDLY POINTED OUT THAT ITS 'MA'AM', my college has rules that you can be kicked out for that, AND THEY KICKED ME OUT FOR IT"!
Officer: "Get the **** out of here, stop wasting my time."