Split Thread Pronouns

[Emily's Cat]

As a follow-on item for you to consider:

You can regain your understanding from the context in which it is used, and avoiding the use of artificially constructed situations that are contrived specifically to introduce the most possible ambiguity in your argumentation.

I actually have to go out of my way in order to avoid the ambiguity that is necessarily introduced by using only sex-neutral pronouns. I'd guesstimate maybe a third of the time, I end up editing my posts when I re-read them, because I realized that the wording was unclear which "they" was being referred to. Sometimes it's really obvious, sure. But when there's more than one person involved, it can get more challenging. You end up having to use nouns instead of pronouns in order to be clear. I end up using other poster's names much more often in my posts than many others do, in order to disambiguate between the "they" that I'm responding to here on ISF and the "they" that is the topic of discussion. Using sex-based pronouns where both parties have the same understanding of the referent cuts the opportunity for ambiguity in half.

It's made even worse, because the pronoun they is both sex neutral and numerically neutral when used in that way. When I'm responding to a singular they and talking about a plural they, it gets very confusing very quickly. Again, sometimes it's very obvious... but I think you're assuming it's less common than it actually is for us to respond to an individual when talking about a group. Ballpark, I'd say I end up responding to a singular they while talking about a plural they is maybe 20%?

I put a lot of effort into making sure my posts are as clear as I can make them without betraying my own principles, while also minimizing the offense that people take. I never directly contradict a person's gender identity, but I also will not betray my own sincere belief that sex is real, and it's meaningful, and it's important... and that female humans have historically been, and continue to be, oppressed, abused, attacked, and dismissed by males at rates that absolutely dwarf the mistreatment experienced by any other group you can name. That matters. To me, as a female human being, it matters a lot.

 

[arthwollipot]

Apart from your last paragraph, which is unnecessary because we all already know that, irrelevant to the discussion at hand, and off-topic for this thread, I largely agree. But the more you do it, in my experience, the easier it gets. I'm not as absolutist about it as you are - if someone gives me their pronouns, I will use them, which makes it considerably easier. I think you've chosen to make it harder for yourself. Which I can respect in some ways. It's not always easy to take the higher road.

 

[Emily's Cat]

As was said, it's clearly about one person, and you know they is also a gender-neuutral pronoun for one person.

It happens much more easily and much more often than you think, when you use sex-neutral pronouns. Alec, Pat, and Robin are arranging to take shifts at work. Alec reports the meeting to their supervisor two days later, explaining why the store was left without staff in the morning.

"They said they'd take the early shift, they'd be there half an hour before opening. They would take the mid-day shift and cover their lunch. I took the late shift and closed, I didn't find out until then that the morning shift hadn't been covered."

Who didn't arrive to open the store?

 

[arthwollipot]

It's never stated who Alec is actually speaking about, which is why I say it is contrived for maximum ambiguity. Alec would state the person's name first, then use the pronoun when it was clear who they were speaking about.

 

[Emily's Cat]

And that makes it difficult at first for us non native speakers to get those nuances unless we put some efforts or get those kinds of explanations.

It's difficult for us too. Even when we use sexed pronouns for the individuals, we still only have one plural pronoun. At least in the romance languages, there's a term for a group of females.

In spanish, for example, even when "el" is assumed to be the default when sex is unknown, and "ellos" is assumed when the sex is mixed, etc. having terms for a group of other people that is all female adds another layer of clarity. Same for "nosotros". Ella, Ellas, and Nosotros eliminate vectors of ambiguity.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I claim my name. I claim my pronouns. They're mine - the correct ways to refer to me. Using them correctly is correct, using them wrongly is wrong.

I disagree. I don't accept that you have the authority to force your belief on me. I don't accept that you have the power to define what is, and what is not, the correct use of english language pronouns - especially when your belief contravenes the way our language has been used for a thousand years.

We can continue discussing pronouns without getting personal, if that's what you mean.

That's the MVP, sure. I think it will be a more productive conversation if you also re-read your posts before submitting, and try to minimize the offense that can be taken. Or at least avoid intentionally causing offense.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Apart from your last paragraph, which is unnecessary because we all already know that, irrelevant to the discussion at hand, and off-topic for this thread, I largely agree.

But it's not irrelevant. It's not off topic. It's the fundamental core of the disagreement in the first place. It all stems from the same postulate: that male human beings who claim to have a transgender identity are - in actual fact in all meanings of the word - women.

That is the entire disagreement. I do not accept your postulate as true.

Furthermore, I recognize and understand in a way you may not be able to grasp, that if I were to accept your postulate... I and all other females on the planet will be made materially worse off in a way that is not at all negated by a very small number of males feeling more comfortable about themselves.

The demand for gender-identity based pronouns only exists in order to further that ideological crusade.

But the more you do it, in my experience, the easier it gets. I'm not as absolutist about it as you are - if someone gives me their pronouns, I will use them, which makes it considerably easier. I think you've chosen to make it harder for yourself. Which I can respect in some ways. It's not always easy to take the higher road.

Yes, it gets easier... but it's even easier to dispense with it altogether and use only sex-neutral pronouns in the first place. And it doesn't require that I betray my own entirely reasonable and rational principles.

 

[Emily's Cat]

It's never stated who Alec is actually speaking about, which is why I say it is contrived for maximum ambiguity. Alec would state the person's name first, then use the pronoun when it was clear who they were speaking about.

It's not contrived, and it's far more common than you think.

Here, I'll even make it a little bit easier for you. I'll give you enough information to know exactly who Alec is speaking about:

It happens much more easily and much more often than you think, when you use sex-neutral pronouns. Alec, Pat, and Robin are arranging to take shifts at work. Alec reports the meeting to their supervisor two days later, explaining why the store was left without staff in the morning.

The manager asked Alec "Why didn't Pat show up to open the store?"

"They said they'd take the early shift" said Alec, "they'd be there half an hour before opening. They would take the mid-day shift and cover their lunch. I took the late shift and closed, I didn't find out until then that the morning shift hadn't been covered."

Who didn't arrive to open the store?

 

[arthwollipot]

But it's not irrelevant. It's not off topic. It's the fundamental core of the disagreement in the first place. It all stems from the same postulate: that male human beings who claim to have a transgender identity are - in actual fact in all meanings of the word - women.

That is the entire disagreement. I do not accept your postulate as true.

Yeah, I know that, which is why it is both unnecessary for you to state and a topic for that other thread.

Furthermore, I recognize and understand in a way you may not be able to grasp, that if I were to accept your postulate... I and all other females on the planet will be made materially worse off in a way that is not at all negated by a very small number of males feeling more comfortable about themselves.

The demand for gender-identity based pronouns only exists in order to further that ideological crusade.

No, this is a persecution fantasy that you have.

Yes, it gets easier... but it's even easier to dispense with it altogether and use only sex-neutral pronouns in the first place. And it doesn't require that I betray my own entirely reasonable and rational principles.

Using the pronouns that I have given you betrays none of your principles, whether they are reasonable or rational or not. It's just referring to me correctly. You can still maintain whatever principles you think you have for other people, but I've told you how to correctly refer to me.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Yeah, I know that, which is why it is both unnecessary for you to state and a topic for that other thread.

I wanted to be explicit about it. Because it's absolutely the fundamental disagreement. All other aspects are because of that postulate. I won't belabor it... but that's the heart and I cannot and will not pretend otherwise. It's also, by the way, the one thing I think you've closed your mind to and haven't actually tried to understand. I don't think you comprehend how vitally important it is to most female humans.

No, this is a persecution fantasy that you have.

Okay, this is you failing to make an effort to avoid offense. There are many ways to make the point that you disagree with me, without framing it as a mental illness on my part. Some of those ways include providing reasons for why you disagree, which is what I would prefer.

In what way do you think this is a something I've misinterpreted? Are you making a casual request that I am free to decline with no negative sentiments? Were that the case, you wouldn't consider it rude, it would be of no import to you.

You failing to use the pronouns that I've requested doesn't cause me to have negative sentiment toward you. I don't think you should be required or obligated to bend to my wishes.

Using the pronouns that I have given you betrays none of your principles, whether they are reasonable or rational or not.

They aren't yours to give.

It's just referring to me correctly.

Why do you think it's referring to you correctly? What makes it correct?

You can still maintain whatever principles you think you have for other people,

If I suspend my principles for you, they aren't principles.

but I've told you how to correctly refer to me.

You have no authority by which to tell me what to do. And we don't have a personal relationship which might incline me to fuzz the edges. You're simply not important enough to me for me to set aside my reality-based beliefs in order to for me to assuage your feelings.

 

[Thermal]

A small note here. It's not a "preferred" pronoun. Preference doesn't enter into it. Nor does happiness or sadness. It's just correct, or it's wrong.

That doesn't help anything, because both sides agree to that. Your opposite number says "what you physically are (with its customary matching pronouns) is correct. Any imaginary identification is wrong, factually so".So asserting they can only be correct or wrong is reinforcing their view. Pronouns, after all, are not yours. They are theirs, that they choose to express their thoughts. Your pronouns are I and me and the rest of the first person lineup.

 

[theprestige]

A small note here. It's not a "preferred" pronoun. Preference doesn't enter into it. Nor does happiness or sadness. It's just correct, or it's wrong.

Correct according to what measure? As far as I can tell, it's all subjective preference.

I refer to you by your username, theprestige.

Clearly false.

Using any other name would not be going against your preference, it would just be wrong.

Wrong according to what measure?

The way I see it, any identifier that effectively identifies can't be wrong.

But you seem to be arguing that personal preference is trumped by factual accuracy. Is that your argument?

Indeed. So why can't you do that? No - why won't you do that?

Because to me it's a larger issue, not a mere matter of minor preferences and common courtesy. I might not be inclined to play by your rules, but I damn well expect you to, if you want your arguments to have weight with me.

 

[arthwollipot]

It's correct because it's mine to say that it's correct. Exactly like my name. It's mine to say that Andy is not my name. She/her is not my pronoun. It is incorrect. You don't get to decide that you'll just call me by a different name (nicknames aside), and you don't get to decide that you're going to call me by a different pronoun.

 

[theprestige]

It's correct because it's mine to say that it's correct. Exactly like my name. It's mine to say that Andy is not my name.

And yet presenting a false ID is a crime pretty much everywhere. Obviously your identifiers don't belong to you alone.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

They can be his while still being shared by everyone else who also chooses them, just as his name is shared with everyone else who was named Andrew by their parents or themselves in a name change. Nowhere has it been claimed that 'our' pronouns are unavailable to be used by anyone else.

 

[arthwollipot]

The only people in the world who can choose what to call me are my parents. And even then I have the legal right to change it if I want to.