Moderated Using wrong pronouns= violence??

[lobosrul5]

[qimg]https://www.amoeba.com/sized-images/max/185/185/uploads/albums/covers/other//TheNelsons_BagYourFace.jpg[/qimg]

Thats another one I was gonna say, but wasn't sure I could.

Also... theres an old ACDC song called Given the Dog a Bone.

 

[theprestige]

This Fall.
On NBC.... THE hottest new game show.

Can You Guess the Sex?

Watch as contestants run through the timed obstacle course with visual clues like 'hair color' 'beard' 'tattoo' and 'penis size'. Try your best or you could be thrown into the Pronoun Pin ballpit.

**Sundays at 2:00am**

Instant hit, right?

My first thought was that a lot of transfolks might be unpleasantly surprised at how many people end up correctly guessing their sex instead of correctly guessing their gender self-identity.

My second thought is, they probably wouldn't be surprised at all, since they already concede that they have to proactively correct this guesswork by announcing their preferred pronouns.

 

[Thermal]

Theres always gonna be some guys that prefer manly faces... and some of them do want kids.

Altruistic souls indeed then. So let's say population decimated.

I mean, I'm taking lunch now in a beach town. Some of the most stunning (and I am confident that they are 100% female) examples of perfect human anatomy are on a revolving catwalk before me.

Put my rougishly good looking male mug on any of them and they are living the Hitachi dating life, if you're feeling me.

 

[lobosrul5]

Altruistic souls indeed then. So let's say population decimated.

I mean, I'm taking lunch now in a beach town. Some of the most stunning and I am confident that they are 100% female) examples of perfect human anatomy are on a revolving catwalk before me.

Put my rougishly good looking male mug on any of them and they are living the Hitachi dating life, if you're feeling me.

Lol... no not altruistic, you mistook what I was implying.

ETA: sure on any one of them maybe... but all of them?

 

[Darat]

Is being a jerk violence?

A jerk can be violent.

 

[Thermal]

Thats another one I was gonna say, but wasn't sure I could.

Also... theres an old ACDC song called Given the Dog a Bone.

Fine, but consider the accompanying societal collapse. Modeling and entertainment industries gone. No more Hooters, unless they change the name to Heifers or something. Everyone who gets by on their looks is suddenly unemployable. Sexual harassment lawyers out of jobs. We'd be like one Butterface away from Mad Max.

 

[lobosrul5]

Fine, but consider the accompanying societal collapse. Modeling and entertainment industries gone. No more Hooters, unless they change the name to Heifers or something. Everyone who gets by on their looks is suddenly unemployable. Sexual harassmentawyers out of jobs. We'd be like one Butterface away from Mad Max.

Yeah, hypothetically, if every woman in the world suddenly had their face changed to what those silly "what if I was a guy" face change phone apps do, it'd suddenly be a very strange place. But I don't think the species would die out.

I think Hooters would still be around though.

 

[Upchurch]

My first thought was that a lot of transfolks might be unpleasantly surprised at how many people end up correctly guessing their sex instead of correctly guessing their gender self-identity.

My second thought is, they probably wouldn't be surprised at all, since they already concede that they have to proactively correct this guesswork by announcing their preferred pronouns.

Don't forget all the cultural warrior types who will be astonished to learn that they can't always tell non-gender conforming cis-women from men.

 

[Emily's Cat]

It's important to note that she has called for the forced sterilization of trans men, violence against transgender people in general, is cozy with anti-semtic groups (even having a Nazi mentor), and of course has had her legal fees promised to be paid by JK Rowling.

Umm... do you have support for these assertions?

 

[Steve]

Seems to me that we are discussing a rather small group of people who are making their own lives more difficult than necessary. Humans are by nature a rather visual species. Sight, for those of us who have it, is our primary method of assessing our world. If a person is seriously concerned whether they are addressed in the third person as he/him or she/her by the population in general they would save themselves a fair bit of trouble by presenting some appropriate clues in their every day appearance.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I've answered this question already, so I'm not sure why anybody is still having problems with it.

Because we disagree with you, and we think that your answer is insufficiently convincing.

 

[Emily's Cat]

"Using wrong pronouns is violence" is just one part of a general trend of excessive hyperbole in public discourse.

"There are downsides to keeping domestic animals as pets. Make sure before you take on a pet that you can not only care for its health but also give it a fulfilling life." But what we hear instead is "Pets are slaves."

"Sugary caffeinated soft drinks consumed in excess are bad for your long-term health." But what we hear instead is "Coca-Cola is poison." Substitute any food or drink whatsoever that someone disapproves of for any reason whatsoever; it's all described as "poison."

My purpose here isn't to discuss animal rights or proper diet, but to place "...is violence" in this larger context. Doing this is taking an aggressive stance that attempts to nullify all opposing points of view and force someone's preferences onto someone else. It can be successful ("abortion is murder" sure got a lot of mileage) or just annoying (think of how most people react when a militant vegan asks them how does their murder-burger taste?) or nearly comical ("taxation is theft").

There are two things wrong with it. One is, if the cola-is-poison viewpoint prevails in redefining "poison" to be "anything potentially harmful for your health if consumed excessively over a long period of time," what do we write on the label of the bottle of stuff that will kill you dead in a few minutes or hours if you consume an ounce of it? We can invent a new word that means actual-for-realz-poison, which the same hyperbolators will immediately appropriate as the new even-better word to describe their feelings about carbonated sugar water (or milk, or non-organic produce, or fast food...).

The second is, it contributes to the minmaxing on social positions that's stressing everyone out. Advice is phrased as demands. Correction is phrased as condemnation. People tune it out or respond in kind, so the purpose of the advice or correction is nullified. It's like a bad marriage where one spouse hesitates to ask "did you pay cable bill" because the other is sure to respond "you never trust me for anything!" But on a global scale.

For some reason we can't just agree "it's rude to disregard people's reasonable preferences in how they're addressed; and we can discuss what preferences are reasonable or not, and what is or is not a reasonable response to any such rudeness." Instead we have arguments between extremes. After all, if you've noticed, the real-world counter-argument to "using wrong pronouns is violence" hasn't really been "no it's not, don't be silly." Instead it's "gender affirmation is grooming." Being expected to pick which side is less stupid is stressful.

Excellently said.

 

[Emily's Cat]

No, that's wrong. Also, it relies on the sex/gender dichotomy, which, as I have said before, is disputed.

Some people also dispute whether the earth is a spheroid and argue that it is flat.

That some people on the internet dispute something that is commonly accepted doesn't mean anything at all. It certainly doesn't suggest that the diputers are right merely because they dispute the premise.

 

[JoeMorgue]

"Using wrong pronouns is violence" is just one part of a general trend of excessive hyperbole in public discourse.

What you say is true, but I've stated in the past how much I bristle at "You're being dramatic, therefore I get to be wrong/cruel/evil."

Hyperbole is simply not the unforgivable sin the internet treats it as. It's not that even bad.

"You're being hurt but you aren't describing it in absolute beige, neutral, terms" is just not something that I can bring myself to care about.

I've said before that lot of the trans/pronoun discourse reminds of how liberals got mocked for popularizing "trigger" as a term for emotional reactions.

"Oh whinny little liberals getting triggered. Why not just call it being bothered? Why you gotta make it sound like you are being attacked?"

"Well when they said it was bothering them did you stop doing it?"

"LOL No."

Same thing here.

99.99% of complaining about people being hyperbolic is coming from people who didn't make any concessions when the people where describing it in more neutral terms so... maybe I just can't care that much about people being "dramatic" and my jaw certainly doesn't drop and my pearls shall remained unclutched.

I don't like it per se, I don't think most of the language liberals use is "right" in the literal, neutral sense of the term but... it is what it is for a reason.

 

[Steve]

Seems to me that we are discussing a rather small group of people who are making their own lives somewhat more difficult than necessary. Humans are by nature a rather visual species. Sight, for those of us who have it, is our primary method of assessing our world, casually and otherwise. If a person is seriously concerned whether they are addressed in the as he/him, she/her, dude, gurrlll, lad/lassie, etc. by the population in general they would save themselves a fair bit of trouble, and a lot of 'correcting' of strangers by presenting some appropriate visual clues in their every day appearance.

Face it. A person who looks female goes through the grocery store checkout and the cashier says "thank you ma'am". A response of "it's sir!" is rarely going to receive a favorable reaction. More likely a covert shrug and a "whatever" under their breath because they really don't give a crap.

Practically nothing that has been raised and discussed in these thousands of posts is ever going to be considered or applied during a short term interaction between two relative strangers in a public interaction.

ETA interesting academic discussion, though.

 

[Emily's Cat]

We assign pronouns to nonhuman animals based on observation of their genitalia, of course. But as I have said, that is entirely irrelevant, and a red herring, so having answered your gotcha question I will ignore future followups. ETA: ignoring your hypothetical too for the same reason.

You're ignoring the entire basis of this discussion. You're dismissing out of hand the challenge to your belief.

You agree that we assign pronouns to animals on the basis of objective observation... but you assert that we ought to use pronouns for humans based on mind-reading. You haven't actually provided any rational argument as to why your belief is "right", nor why anybody should be expected to dismiss observable reality.

You stating your belief as fact does not actually make it fact. It's also completely unconvincing.

 

[Thermal]

Seems to me that we are discussing a rather small group of people who are making their own lives somewhat more difficult than necessary. Humans are by nature a rather visual species. Sight, for those of us who have it, is our primary method of assessing our world, casually and otherwise. If a person is seriously concerned whether they are addressed in the as he/him, she/her, dude, gurrlll, lad/lassie, etc. by the population in general they would save themselves a fair bit of trouble, and a lot of 'correcting' of strangers by presenting some appropriate visual clues in their every day appearance.

Face it. A person who looks female goes through the grocery store checkout and the cashier says "thank you ma'am". A response of "it's sir!" is rarely going to receive a favorable reaction. More likely a covert shrug and a "whatever" under their breath because they really don't give a crap.

Practically nothing that has been raised and discussed in these thousands of posts is ever going to be considered or applied during a short term interaction between two relative strangers in a public interaction.

ETA interesting academic discussion, though.

True story: I get annoyed by sales associates calling me sir (I'm obviously not a distinguished gentleman, military officer, judge or Knighted). So I've taken to responding with "don't misgender me, bigot". It's a real crowd pleaser.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Why, yes, I do conform to quite a few male gender norms, just like I’ve been telling you. You still have no actual evidence of my sex and that’s the point.

On line, where everyone is anonymous, all we have is what you tell us. And we take it at face value until such time as you appear to contradict yourself, or when your claims about yourself seem to indicate dishonesty. We assume that the profile pic you have provided is actually of you (not true for everyone, of course).

Based on your profile pic, you appear to be male. Given that this is in concert with what you have told us about yourself, we accept that your claim of being male is true and accurate, and we have no reason to think that you are dishonest about that.

I strongly suspect that every person you have interacted with in person once you were past about 13 years old has correctly perceived you to be male; I strongly suspect that if any of us were to interact with you in person, we would also correctly perceive you to be male.

All of that has nothing at all to do with gender norms, it has to do with the physical indicators of sex.

 

[Steve]

True story: I get annoyed by sales associates calling me sir (I'm obviously not a distinguished gentleman, military officer, judge or Knighted). So I've taken to responding with "don't misgender me, bigot". It's a real crowd pleaser.

Just assume that the gentleman in my example is Sir Gadabout of Camelot.

 

[Emily's Cat]

You might draw that conclusion based on the information, but the information you have is how well you believe the person conforms to a particular gender norm.

No.