Split Thread Pronouns

[Thermal]

No. I'm just saying one also can't apply that in the opposite direction. You can't extrapolate that Japan is infantilising adult women in anime, based on western talking points, when the whole language and culture don't work that way. Find some better example than anime, is all I'm saying.

Gotcha. My antenna are a little off lately.

 

[Thermal]

Again, for the hundredth time, the number of people who use bespoke pronouns is vanishingly small. The probability that you will ever encounter one in your lifetime is infinitesimal.

The second person I met who preferred 'counterintuitive' pronouns was a 'xe', a friend of one of my kids. I was told she dropped it in college.

But the principle still applies- if we are obligated to take them seriously, does that extend to the silly ◊◊◊◊ like made up identifications?

Like, I have no issues with transwomen wanting to be called 'she'. But when you get into all this Options 3,4,5... you're losing me. These options aren't real.

 

[dirtywick]

you’re not obligated to take them seriously. although if you want to go that route, some people might think you’re just being an ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊

case and point, i was on a forum recently where a someone, individual a, called someone else, individual b, “them” even though their profile was a picture of a man and clearly uses he/him pronouns that were even listed in their bio. when that person was corrected and asked to just speak normally, they stubbornly insisted on continuing to use they/them, clearly and basically admitted it was to rustle the jimmies of individual b

so you might say individual a is not obligated to take individual b seriously, and they didn’t. they were just being an ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊

now if you feel the need to take that all at face value despite that admission and relitigate pronoun arguments from 5 years ago, well that’s kind of on you at that point. i’ll give you my perspective, 5 years ago people were just being ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ about it too

 

[Ziggurat]

case and point

<pedant>Case in point</pedant>


ETA: I learned a new word today: eggcorn. I think the above qualifies.

 

[Thermal]

<pedant>Case in point</pedant>


ETA: I learned a new word today: eggcorn. I think the above qualifies.

The preposition identifies as a conjunction, bigot.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I absolutely do not use derogatory names for anybody, and I am offended that you would suggest that I do.

If you have an example of me calling someone a derogatory name, where I'm not trying to be funny or ironic, then please show me.

You've called me, and several other people, a transphobe, a bigot, and similarly contemptuous insulting terms on more than one occasion.

I absolutely hold myself to the same standard to which I hold others. If you have an example where I am not, then please show me.

Seems to me that you are using the specific pronoun you when you mean people in general. Is that the case?

No, I do not mean people in general. That would also hold true, but in this case I'm speaking of you specifically.

And you're right - I can't control what people call me when they're not in my presence. But that's 100% completely irrelevant.

How is it irrelevant, when your entire line of discussion here is to demand that I refer to you in the third person in a way that pleases you? In what way is that anything other than you trying to control how I refer to you when not in your presence?

 

[Emily's Cat]

I must admit I'm slightly puzzled by this one. How often do we need to be referring to another member in the third person, on this forum, and so have occasion to use pronouns to indicate them? Aren't we supposed to be addressing the topic, not discussing other members?

It frequently comes up, and it's extremely common in any discussion where there is more than only two people involved.

Consider a discussion between me, you, and Darat. I might be talking to you, relating that "Darat said xxx, and said that they think it's a reasonable solution".

 

[Emily's Cat]

I'm perfectly aware how to construct such a sentence, but in what circumstances would you be saying this?

All the time, zoot. It's incredibly common to make references to other posters in ways that don't constitute addressing the arguer rather than the argument.

If it weren't, none of you would ever get a break from infracting all the members every day .

 

[Emily's Cat]

I'm Irish on my parent's sides of the family. We blunt.

Wonder if that's where I get it from...

 

[Ziggurat]

The preposition identifies as a conjunction, bigot.

Touche.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Using 'they' when it is not desired or even helpful is already awkward and annoying to everyone else.

You've said elsewhere that you use this because you were actioned for referring to a lone transwoman as 'he' against the members expressed request. You don't have that problem anymore, so you are just being theatrical for its own sake. Maybe just give it a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ rest?

Eta: you know how you were actioned for refusing to use someone's expressed preference because you say you know better and will do the dictating? You're still ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ doing it.

Actually, I was never actioned for using "he" in reference to a male ISF member who identified as transgender. Because I never did. I referred to them as male... which is an absolutely true statement, and one that they themself had shared.

And no, I'm not being "theatrical", I'm being principled. This is important to me. And it's important to a lot of other people too, mostly female humans.

I won't intentionally insult a transgender person by referring to them with a sex-based pronoun; but I also won't be bullied into referring to them with a gender-identity-based pronoun because I do not believe in the ideology of gender-identity. I won't be forced to give lip service to a religion. The most reasonable balance I can achieve is to refer to ALL people by neutral pronouns and avoid both "misgendering" and betraying my own principles.

 

[Emily's Cat]

You say this as though remembering someone's pronoun is a burden. It isn't. I can assure you, it isn't. If you can remember someone's birthday, you can remember their pronoun. You don't need to remember everyone's birthday, but you remember the ones that matter to you.

The number of people on this site who matter to me as even "good acquaintances" can be counted on one hand.

You don't matter to me. And I don't expect that I matter to you. I expect that at the very most, you find me to be an intersting interlocutor.

And in 90% of cases, if you just make a guess based on obvious physical characteristics, you'll be right.

Aye, and there's the rub. The obvious physical characteristics that I actually employ are not gender identity, they're sex-based characteristics. Out in the real world, if a male person can be recognized as a male (which they usually can be), then I will think of them as male, and I would use male sex-based pronouns when referring to them. If they're in earshot, or they're someone I care about, at best I'll use neutral pronouns in reference to them.

In the rare event that they have had so much cosmetic surgery that they actually do fool me with their mimicry of the opposite sex, then congratulations - they've effectually impersonated the physical characteristics of the opposite sex. In that case, they'd get the privilege of being referred to with the wrong sex-based pronoun, because their masquerade is top notch.

The important thing is when someone politely corrects you, politely acknowledge the correction and move on.

Again, I'll point you right back to the underlying premise of this discussion. I do not recognize it as a "correction" when someone expects me to sat aside my principles in order to repeat something that is not true.

No matter how polite you think it might be, I won't tell you there are five lights when I can clearly see that there are only four. Nor will I politely acquiesce to telling you how spectacular the emperor's new outfit is when I can clearly see their buttocks.

 

[Emily's Cat]

For example, there are now several examples in this thread where we have referred to Emily's Cat by the correct pronoun - she/her. Which puts the lie to the idea that it never happens.

Except that I specifically and explicitly have asked to be referred to by neutral pronouns. Multiple times.

So no, you are NOT referring to my by "correct" pronouns for this site. You are imposing your own perception of me, as well as your knowledge of my sex, onto me without my consent or approval.

The difference is that I don't think I have the authority or importance to force you to bend to my wishes on that. And I have a strong enough sense of self that it doesn't cause me to become immediately suicidal if you use sex-based pronouns in reference to me. Hell, it's not even going to get more than a giggle from me if you intentionally use opposite-sex pronouns in reference to me.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I completely disagree, and for this reason:

There are people for whom pronouns aren't important. They just don't care how others refer to them. Whatever. They don't care, I don't care. We're not talking about them. Do what you like.

But there are people for whom pronouns are very important. There are people for whom the correct pronouns are intimately tied to their gender identity. And yes, I'm talking about trans and nonbinary people. For them, using the wrong pronoun is transphobic and bigoted. It's part of the stigmatisation of transgender people and it contributes to mental health harm. I know people who are in this boat. They are my friends and I love them.

That's why I think pronouns are important.

There are people for whom flicking the lightswitch six times before leaving a room is very important, and failure to do so causes them emotional discomfort. There are people for whom telling them they look curvy causes a deep emotional reaction because they believe themselves to be fat.

I appreciate that these are your friends - and you are free and welcome to use whatever pronouns about your friends as you wish. I'm not trying to convince you not to do so - I'm asking that you refrain from trying to force me to adopt your beliefs.

At the end of the day, I do not believe in gender identity. I don't believe in gendered souls, as I don't believe in souls in the first place. I do not accept the religion of gender identity, and I will not convert.

The best I can do is remain neutral and try to avoid intentional insult.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I assure you that for most people even remembering their name or face is a burden. Just because I don't give a flip about them.

I'm starting to wonder if we might be related.

 

[Emily's Cat]

That's all I'm saying. Nobody cares whether you care about randos or not. We care that you care about the people you give a damn about. However many people that is in your life.

ETA: In my case, because I'm just some rando, I have this handy little reminder right there below my username.

Well, I'm sorry to say that to me you are a rando that I don't care about.

Your handy reminder is a profession of your faith, and I view it in exactly the same way I do a christian wearing a crucifix, or a jew wearing a star of david, or any other religious and ideological paraphernalia that people display on a regular basis. I don't feel any obligation to accept their beliefs and conform to their orthopraxi.

Yes, I just learned a new word.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Seriously, y'all fell victim to a troll. Arth wasn't demanding to be called anything odd, he just wanted to be called "he". Because he's a dude.

Are you opining that Arthwollipot is a troll? Arthwollipot is the one who kicked this off, demanding that I abandon my principles and my practice in order to assuage Arthwollipot's feelings. I declined. We only have this thread because Arthwollipot demanded it be so.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I'm less interested in the interior souls than in behavior. If rules are being broken there should be consequences, regardless of any sincerity in the motivation behind the behaviors.

Rules are not being broken. I have never been actioned for it. Nor even had staff suggest that I should be forced to use gender-identity based third person pronouns rather than neutral forms that apply to anyone in any situation and elide the argument between sex-based reality and gender-identity based beliefs.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I don't think it is against the rules. She's been doing this for a while, and hasn't been actioned for it yet.

For about five years.

 

[Myriad]

As far as I can tell the de facto forum rules for pronoun misgendering follow a very common compromise: "You're not required to affirm it. You're not permitted to contradict it."

"It" in this case stands for something that a minority of people care intensely about but disagree on, while most are close to indifferent. An example I grew up with is reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in U.S. public schools, daily at the start of every day. There's never been unanimity among school officials, students, or their parents about this practice. I was in elementary school in a suburb where it might as well have been the mid 1950s as far as social issues were concerned (pizza was still exotic foreign food) but even so, there were some individuals and families with apparently very strong religious or political objections to reciting the pledge, and they were allowed to remain silent. There were also students with creative or rebellious or just ridiculously bored inclinations, who got the bright idea of reciting out loud some opposite-day or parody version. That transgression was punished without quarter. What was the difference? The difference between not-affirming and contradicting. The only way for extreme pro-pledge and anti-pledge viewpoints to coexist is to permit non-affirmation but forbid contradiction. Meanwhile, the rest of us just mumbled the pledge as always, not even processing the individual words.

Third person singular usage of "they" and "them" as pronouns neither affirms nor contradicts a gender identity. They do not express a gender (which is why people with "non-gendered" and "non-binary" gender identities can use them and request their use).

As far as I can tell, the forum rules give arthwollipot the right not to have his gender identity contradicted by other members' posts. That's not the same right as commanding the use of any specific pronouns or other specific phrasings. For instance, I doubt it would occur to him to object to my posting something like "give the guy a break" regarding something stupid someone else says about him, even though "the guy" is blatantly not any of the words "he," "him," "his," "himself," or his forum name.

Emily's Cat objects to the misgendering rule for reasons they've explained (regarding people they believe claim a gender identity without having earned that identity via lived experience). Not being allowed (under protest) to directly contradict anyone's stated gender identity, they refuse to affirm any of them either, for instance by refraining from the use of gendered pronouns. It is, and should be, within their rights to refuse to affirm a male (or any) gender identity by using gender-nonspecific pronouns and to refuse to use gender-specific pronouns even if demanded.