Moderated Using wrong pronouns= violence??

[Samson]

For a start I'm having difficulty parsing your sentence. Secondly, it really doesn't. What human rights does a trans woman "remove" from cis women? Cis women still have all their human rights regardless of the existence of trans people. Thirdly, is it beyond your notice that trans men also exist? Or are they just okay? Why the discrimination?

Bully for them. Trans people are fighting their first.

What the actual **** are you talking about?

Ah yes, the old "tolerance of intolerance" argument. Be skeptical of skepticism. Flammable, inflammable, labels don't matter. Human rights matter.

I am summarising to my best ability what KJK and her ilk say.
I also hold that pronouns should be banned from schools. I imagine you think the exact opposite.
Scott Newgent persuaded me, an f to m transitioner.

 

[arthwollipot]

I also hold that pronouns should be banned from schools.

Pronouns should be banned?

How would that work? I don't think Samson would really support that if Samson really had a think about what Samson was saying. Samson used no less than seven pronouns in the post that arthwollipot just quoted, and arthwollipot doesn't think Samson really understands what Samson is suggesting.

Pronouns serve a useful purpose in language. It is nonsensical to suggest banning them.

 

[Samson]

Pronouns should be banned?

How would that work? I don't think Samson would really support that if Samson really had a think about what Samson was saying. Samson used no less than seven pronouns in the post that arthwollipot just quoted, and arthwollipot doesn't think Samson really understands what Samson is suggesting.

Pronouns serve a useful purpose in language. It is nonsensical to suggest banning them.

Pronouns are simple in Uganda.
We did grammar to beat the band in the 60s.
Nostalgia is a refuge.
I liked a simple world where the rules were simple.
We studied Skinner and Chomsky, and if I wasnt glued to this melancholy thread I would get up to speed with Pinker.
I would teach these guys in primary school but
never abuse a child by inviting them to pick a pronoun.
That Is Violence, if you will.

 

[arthwollipot]

Is this blank verse? Beat poetry?

 

[Samson]

Is this blank verse? Beat poetry?

Thank you for being attentive. I put some work into it, reward uncertain.

 

[ahhell]

Pronouns should be banned?

How would that work? I don't think Samson would really support that if Samson really had a think about what Samson was saying. Samson used no less than seven pronouns in the post that arthwollipot just quoted, and arthwollipot doesn't think Samson really understands what Samson is suggesting.

Pronouns serve a useful purpose in language. It is nonsensical to suggest banning them.

Its a tangent but there is a point where neo pronouns just become silly. IDK, after a half dozen choices or so, they start to just become nouns, if taken to an extreme, they're just alternate personnel name.

Granted it is nut picking but if one looks, they can find tik tok vids of folks creating their own peronnel pronouns. So, rare but there are people who basically want folks to use "pronouns" that are really just a personnel title.

I'd be fine with the singular they or some fourth option that is a singular they for folks who don't want to be he or she.

 

[d4m10n]

I think you're actually asking whether someone is justified in using physical violence in "self-defense" against mental, emotional or social violence, which is crossing over categories.

I am asking whether you (all) can see a clear distinction between these two categories, and whether that distinction matters when judging someone for using the first kind in retaliation against the second.

 

[theprestige]

Nope. Flat no.

Someone might have to say their pronouns because they know themselves better than you know them. And they absolutely do.

People can know all kinds of things about themselves that are exaggerated, untrue, etc.

But pronouns aren't about how you perceive yourself, they're about how others perceive you.

 

[lobosrul5]

People can know all kinds of things about themselves that are exaggerated, untrue, etc.

But pronouns aren't about how you perceive yourself, they're about how others perceive you.

So, would it be socially acceptable to continue to refer to someone by the wrong pronoun even if they are not trans? If I mistakenly refer to a woman with short hair as "he" and she says "actually I'm a she" is it socially acceptable for me to just keep on saying nope I view you as a "he"?

 

[theprestige]

So, would it be socially acceptable to continue to refer to someone by the wrong pronoun even if they are not trans? If I mistakenly refer to a woman with short hair as "he" and she says "actually I'm a she" is it socially acceptable for me to just keep on saying nope I view you as a "he"?

Bet you'd see the "she" as soon as it was pointed out to you.

ETA: Also there is to my mind a difference in the social acceptability of asking someone to (pretend to) think something is true because you (pretend to) think it's true, and asking someone to (pretend to) think something is true because it actually is true.

Compare:

"I want you to act like I'm an attack helicopter because I like to think of myself as an attack helicopter."

"That's absurd. You're obviously not an attack helicopter, and I'm not going to pretend otherwise out of some misguided sense of politeness. If this is a serious problem for you, seek professional help."​

With:

"I want you to act like I'm female because I like to think of myself as female."

"That's absurd. You're obviously not female, and I'm not going to pretend otherwise out of some misguided sense of politeness. If this is a serious problem for you, seek professional help."​

In terms of facts, which scenario has the more problematic response, and why?

It's certainly not violence to dismiss the attack helicopter identity claim as unserious. Because you're fairly certain they're just using comic hyperbole to make a sociopolitical point. But try telling the Church of Satan or the FSM fanclub that they're being unserious and their "religion" is just trying to make a sociopolitical point.

No, it is the preferred pronouns that are unserious. If I have to tell you I'd rather you think of me as an attack helicopter, it's because I'm not actually an attack helicopter and we both know it. There are, as you so astutely observe, exceptions to this general framework. But this is the general framework, and that's why the exceptions are called exceptions and not the norm.

 

[Thermal]

So, would it be socially acceptable to continue to refer to someone by the wrong pronoun even if they are not trans? If I mistakenly refer to a woman with short hair as "he" and she says "actually I'm a she" is it socially acceptable for me to just keep on saying nope I view you as a "he"?

No, but that's where I make the distinction. It's not how you present or how I think of you, but what you actually are. Which of course ties back to the theme of That Thread, and round and round we go.

 

[gnome]

Pronouns are simple in Uganda.
We did grammar to beat the band in the 60s.
Nostalgia is a refuge.
I liked a simple world where the rules were simple.
We studied Skinner and Chomsky, and if I wasnt glued to this melancholy thread I would get up to speed with Pinker.
I would teach these guys in primary school but
never abuse a child by inviting them to pick a pronoun.
That Is Violence, if you will.

A simple world like Uganda, where *checks notes* you can go to prison for homosexual activity, or even be executed. I'm not sure I'd be holding that country up as an example to emulate.

 

[Samson]

Not an answer.

A simple world like Uganda, where *checks notes* you can go to prison for homosexual activity, or even be executed. I'm not sure I'd be holding that country up as an example to emulate.

I imagine it is the last place children would be encouraged to announce their pronouns, California I think the first.
Both extremely dangerous states for opposite reasons.
I am suggesting a ban on non biologically derived pronouns, not same sex attraction.

 

[tyr_13]

I have not heard this and I have my ears open. I would certainly be interested to know who.
Anti trans is a made up term of course which is quite meaningless.

It was again in the video you said you watch.

Look, I don't begrudge people not being willing to watch a YouTube video for evidence of an argument, even less so when it's a two hour video, but don't pretend to have watched it if you haven't.

People can know all kinds of things about themselves that are exaggerated, untrue, etc.

But pronouns aren't about how you perceive yourself, they're about how others perceive you.

And you want your own in group to have primacy over how others perceive trans women. Not that I'm agreeing with your claim here, but it still leaves to problem that when you misgender people in general (in the west, other caveats, etc), you're going to be seen as a dick at least and a danger at worst.

So, would it be socially acceptable to continue to refer to someone by the wrong pronoun even if they are not trans? If I mistakenly refer to a woman with short hair as "he" and she says "actually I'm a she" is it socially acceptable for me to just keep on saying nope I view you as a "he"?

Bet you'd see the "she" as soon as it was pointed out to you. [big snip]

And you, and the anti-trans coalition, refuse to see butch women as women. Further expanding from the above, what you all keep arguing for is a way to 'rules lawyer' you way into misgendering being 'technically not rude' and decoupled from the right wing threats around it.

But that's not how it works even if your own standard did hold. People could, and many would, still call you a dick for misgendering. Your refusal to see trans women as women enough to use their correct pronouns (which isn't your call) isn't at all like refusing to see someone as an attack helicopter. Transgender people exist and have been acknowledged since ancient times, with the modern medical recognition that it's simply a valid lived condition. Trans-copter just isn't that at all.

It is absurd to pretend there is a valid point to be had there. What is happening is that some people want the title of 'dickhead' to be self-identity only, and that just isn't happening.

 

[d4m10n]

I keep seeing this phrase "correct pronouns" but I think it just means "pronouns demanded by people I support."

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

 

[Samson]

It was again in the video you said you watch.

Look, I don't begrudge people not being willing to watch a YouTube video for evidence of an argument, even less so when it's a two hour video, but don't pretend to have watched it if you haven't.



And you want your own in group to have primacy over how others perceive trans women. Not that I'm agreeing with your claim here, but it still leaves to problem that when you misgender people in general (in the west, other caveats, etc), you're going to be seen as a dick at least and a danger at worst.





And you, and the anti-trans coalition, refuse to see butch women as women. Further expanding from the above, what you all keep arguing for is a way to 'rules lawyer' you way into misgendering being 'technically not rude' and decoupled from the right wing threats around it.

But that's not how it works even if your own standard did hold. People could, and many would, still call you a dick for misgendering. Your refusal to see trans women as women enough to use their correct pronouns (which isn't your call) isn't at all like refusing to see someone as an attack helicopter. Transgender people exist and have been acknowledged since ancient times, with the modern medical recognition that it's simply a valid lived condition. Trans-copter just isn't that at all.

It is absurd to pretend there is a valid point to be had there. What is happening is that some people want the title of 'dickhead' to be self-identity only, and that just isn't happening.

Surely you see there is an argument that the misgendering is by the trans people. An argument note. For example most of the worlds population is not on board, so is the majority wrong?
And blind Freddie can see the trans community have played a trenchant hand. It could be argued a backlash could be expected. My female identifying brother never expected his family to use a new name or pronoun suite.
I now belatedly appreciate the dignity in this.

 

[theprestige]

Then why are so many people opposed to human rights for trans people? How would you describe that?

I'd describe it in The Other Thread, is how I'd describe it. Feel free to raise the question there if you want my description. For now, I'll just say that it's a red herring.

 

[theprestige]

And you want your own in group to have primacy over how others perceive trans women.

No. I want how I perceive something to have primacy over how others want me to perceive it.

I don't want to be told I'm committing a hate crime if I perceive a male as male, and use terminology that reflects my perception, rather than that male's own perception.

I want there to be room in your philosophy to tolerate people who perceive males and females as such.

 

[tyr_13]

I keep seeing this phrase "correct pronouns" but I think it just means "pronouns demanded by people I support."

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

As opposed to 'pronouns demanded by people other than the people you support', which is theprestige's basic assertion.

'Pronouns should be based on what I think your gender is' isn't actually any less tied to your objection.

No. I want how I perceive something to have primacy over how others want me to perceive it.

I don't want to be told I'm committing a hate crime if I perceive a male as male, and use terminology that reflects my perception, rather than that male's own perception.

I want there to be room in your philosophy to tolerate people who perceive males and females as such.

Then you won't object to people calling those who misgender to being called 'dickheads'. After all, that's not harassment if that's how people perceive those who misgender. That is, if we even have to buy 'using different pronouns is controlling my personal perceptions', which, damn, no. That's worse hyperbole than the hate crime comment, both of which are worse hyperbole than calling harassment 'violence'.

And that's before getting into your demand that other people accept your anti-trans stances. Who is controlling perception again?

But thanks to the both of you for reminding me why addressing the old people from the other thread is useless. People aren't about to start thinking it's ok to call people the wrong pronouns because you think they're too butch.

 

[gnome]

I don't want to be told I'm committing a hate crime if I perceive a male as male, and use terminology that reflects my perception, rather than that male's own perception.

Hold it right there. "Hate crime" laws involving this do not have the terminology be the crime. The crime is violence and intimidation, neither of which involves simply refusing to use a terminology.

What raises a violent act, for example, to hate crime is motivation.

If you hit someone because they're using pronouns you don't approve of, that could be a hate crime.

If you just say you don't agree and refuse to use them, that would not be.