Split Thread Pronouns

[Thermal]

It does NOT correspond to my gender. I do not have a gender-identity.

Well... you do, you just don't acknowledge it? What everyone else calls your gender identity is (in this context) synonymous with what sex you acknowledge you are.

 

[Emily's Cat]

The difference between you and me is that I try not to be a bastard. I don't always succeed, but I hold that the state of not being a bastard is a better state than the state of being a bastard, and it is a state to be strived for. Thus, whenever I can, I practice the act of not being a bastard. It feels better and leads to better outcomes.

Furthermore, I hold that the state of assuming everybody else is already a bastard is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you believe everyone around you is a bastard, then you can justify yourself being a bastard to them, and that makes them think that you are a bastard and act accordingly. I, on the other hand, do not assume that everybody is a bastard, which means that when someone engages in bastardry towards me, it stands out more.

Additionally, I hold that the best way to deal with someone else's bastardry is to be as nice as possible towards them, until that becomes impossible. It throws their bastardry into sharp relief, illustrating to observers exactly how much of a bastard the person is, and hopefully making the bastard think a little about their bastardry and perhaps, if we're lucky, decide not to be so much of a bastard next time.

And thus does the world become a better place for everyone.

I respect peoples' pronouns because I don't want to be a bastard about it. I apologised for misgendering Emily's Cat and asked what pronouns they would like me to use. They have yet to reply, so for the moment I will use the gender neutral one, because I don't want to be a bastard.

However, I acknowledge that I am fallible and can sometimes be a bastard, despite my best efforts. Emily's Cat has done me the great courtesy of pointing out a few times in the past where I have been a bastard and while, as I said, I stand by every word and do not withdraw a single thing, I acknowledge that I should have been less of a bastard about it.

I don't think you actually really understand the fundamental disagreement. I've tried to explain the principles involved for me, and I've even given some limited explanation of why those principles are so important to me. I'll very happily give you a much broader explanation in a different thread. But at the end of the day, right now, I genuinely don't think you understand that it is not harmless.

It's harmless to you. It's a risk and a problem that you never experience, and you might not even be aware is a problem at all.

It's like seatbelts.

Congratulations. You made the thread all about me.

Respectfully and with no intent to insult... you made the thread about you. And me. So you shouldn't be surprised that we're the topic for others as well.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I have apologised to Emily's Cat and asked them what pronouns they would like me to use. If they are happy for me to continue to use the gender-neutral pronoun, I will continue to do so. Because it costs me nothing. It's literally the least I can do.

Thank you.

It might be something worth considering that I've mentioned this to you multiple times. This was like the third time in this thread. And I've mentioned it many times over the course of about five years, in multiple discussions that you've been part of.

But it didn't process until now. When pronouns explicitly are the topic of conversation, and when you are intentionally interacting with me specifically. You didn't process and conform to my wishes when you were first asked, nor did you notice that I had made the request in general several times.

I'm curious to know why you think that is.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I bet you ten internet bucks that some time in the future you'll find yourself using someone's pronoun while in their presence and you'll remember this.

I'll give another scenario where one might use third-person pronouns in reference to a person who is present: When speaking on behalf of that other person. A parent might be talking to a teacher with a teacher present and say "they're allergic to peanut butter". An old fashioned date might result in the male participant saying "they'll have the trout".

In a professional setting... not often. Mostly only in situations where an announcement is being made, usually from a position of authority. I might send an email to my superior, informing them of the work plan for a project, and use third-person pronouns in limited contexts where there's no ambiguity. I might say "Alex will take the morning shift and they'll stay through lunch. "Pat will show up before lunch, and will stay through closing." But in that context, I actually am talking about the two of them, even though they're also included on the email.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I recently cleared my ignore list for a specific purpose and there's no reason whatsoever for me to be telling you this now.

Okay, this made me giggle. Well worded!

 

[TragicMonkey]

I'm a bit lost. Is this the correct summation of this thread:

Emily's Cat must only be referred to using the pronouns Emily's Cat wants. But Emily's Cat reserves the right to refer to everyone else as "they", per post #2:

I don't use sex or gender-identity based pronouns for anyone at all. I only use neutral pronouns, and I endeavor to use sex neutral terms whenever it's feasible without sacrificing understanding.

You aren't special enough for me to upend my entire approach.

If anyone's asserting a position of being "special" here...

 

[Emily's Cat]

Yeah, thats why these discussions are cool, we get different POVs that we might not have considered from our personal experience.

Total sidebar, but in residential construction, we often don't have a rigid chain of command. It's often more like everyone working together and providing their own expertise so that we all get the job done, have a satisfied customer, and everyone gets paid, working smoothly. The lowest guy on the totem pole will be listened to as much as El Jefe. You never know who's going to have just the right insight to solve a problem. The guy doing the conducting (in this example, me) has to be open to that, and not be an arrogant ass who won't listen to anyone else.

Even without a rigid chain of command, I would guess there's usually a leader, even if they sometimes turn over leadership to the low person on the totem poll.

Not a hardline rule, of course, but the leader ends up being the person who is best at identifying a path to the goal, and of leveraging the skills each person has to get there. That usually involves valuing the opinions and insights of other people within their skillset.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I'm a bit lost. Is this the correct summation of this thread:

Emily's Cat must only be referred to using the pronouns Emily's Cat wants. But Emily's Cat reserves the right to refer to everyone else as "they", per post #2:


If anyone's asserting a position of being "special" here...

You've missed a rather important aspect of it.

I made a request, but it's only that - a request. I don't expect anyone to change their habits on my behalf. It would be a courtesy to me, but I also understand that it comes at a cost to them, even if they deem it a small one. I don't get angry and I don't hold a grudge if others don't do as I ask of them, when the sole purpose of my request is for my own comfort.

And since at least some of the people I interact with have strong, principled opinions about how they would like pronouns to be used, I respect their right to hold beliefs in opposition to mine.

But I really do dislike hypocrisy. Actions speak far louder than words and all that.

 

[Thermal]

Even without a rigid chain of command, I would guess there's usually a leader, even if they sometimes turn over leadership to the low person on the totem poll.

Yeah, and it's usually me running point and dealing with the customer. Other times a plumber is technically the GC and hires me to provide alterations or repairs. But ultimately, we're all pros who respect each other, despite the howling about each other's sexual proclivities and parentage.

Not a hardline rule, of course, but the leader ends up being the person who is best at identifying a path to the goal, and of leveraging the skills each person has to get there. That usually involves valuing the opinions and insights of other people within their skillset.

Right. There is usually one guy who can both sweat and bleed in the crawlspwce, and still be able to talk flow and design elements and complementary color schemes with the homeowner. And sometimes it's just a mechanical repair or replacement and the finesse isn't needed.

 

[theprestige]

Well... you do, you just don't acknowledge it?

Telling people they don't understand their gender identity as well as you understand their gender identity is a bold strategy.

 

[TragicMonkey]

You've missed a rather important aspect of it.

I made a request, but it's only that - a request. I don't expect anyone to change their habits on my behalf. It would be a courtesy to me, but I also understand that it comes at a cost to them, even if they deem it a small one. I don't get angry and I don't hold a grudge if others don't do as I ask of them, when the sole purpose of my request is for my own comfort.

I don't have any problems with calling you "they", if you like: my principle is to just call people what they want to be called.

And since at least some of the people I interact with have strong, principled opinions about how they would like pronouns to be used, I respect their right to hold beliefs in opposition to mine.

Okay, so you "respect their right to hold beliefs"...but are you going to use the pronouns they want you to use for them? Or does your respect not include actual actions, just thoughts?

But I really do dislike hypocrisy. Actions speak far louder than words and all that.

Which is why I'm confused about the apparent position you are occupying where it's respectful for others to call you what you want to be called, but you aren't actually saying you'll call those same others what they want to be called.

 

[Thermal]

Telling people they don't understand their gender identity as well as you understand their gender identity is a bold strategy.

When they are synonymous, as they are 99+% of the time, is it really contradicting anything?

"I don't acknowledge gender, only sex."

"Then your gender ID corresponds to your sex, like most do. It's what you *are*, and what you say you don't have... well, you *do*, you just prefer another name for it."

"Preference, you say?"

 

[Emily's Cat]

Well... you do, you just don't acknowledge it? What everyone else calls your gender identity is (in this context) synonymous with what sex you acknowledge you are.

Why on earth would you take the position that other people have the authority to dictate my gender identity? Especially when engaged in arguing that we should accept what other people tell us their gender identity is?

Would you also say that all atheists are actually religious and they just don't realize it? That all atheists have souls, even if they don't acknowledge their soul as being real?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Okay, so you "respect their right to hold beliefs"...but are you going to use the pronouns they want you to use for them? Or does your respect not include actual actions, just thoughts?

I have a very strong principle when it comes to the distinction between male and female, and the way that distinction plays into the lives of female humans. Pronouns are part and parcel of that principle.

I won't abandon my principles to assuage someone else's feelings.
On the other hand, I also won't contradict their belief.

I wouldn't call a male forum member who says they identify as transgender "he". That would be rude, as it would directly contradict their assertion. I won't force my view on them, but I also won't allow their view to be forced on me.

The net result is that I don't use either sex-based or gender-identity-based pronouns at all.

They don't get what they want, but I'm not trying to make them take what I want.

 

[Emily's Cat]

When they are synonymous, as they are 99+% of the time, is it really contradicting anything?

"I don't acknowledge gender, only sex."

"Then your gender ID corresponds to your sex, like most do. It's what you *are*, and what you say you don't have... well, you *do*, you just prefer another name for it."

"Preference, you say?"

I don't believe that souls exist, therefore I do not believe I have a soul. I'm perfectly comfortable saying that I don't have a soul.

You're free to believe that you have a soul.

 

[Thermal]

Why on earth would you take the position that other people have the authority to dictate my gender identity? Especially when engaged in arguing that we should accept what other people tell us their gender identity is?

Because if your gender identity *is* your sex, there's nothing to argue? Kind of like sex is observed and recorded at birth, even if it is *called* a gender identity? The name doesn't change what it *is*, any more than calling you EC or me Therm doesn't change anything substantial.

Would you also say that all atheists are actually religious and they just don't realize it? That all atheists have souls, even if they don't acknowledge their soul as being real?

Great example! A soul is a more or less defined thing, at least as something independent of the process if a functioning brain. An atheist will say there is no such unique thingy.

Gender ID is what you feel that you *are*, and if that corresponds exactly to your sex, as it does overwhelmingly in the population, then there is no disparity. There is no 'other thingy', like a soul.

 

[Thermal]

I don't believe that souls exist, therefore I do not believe I have a soul. I'm perfectly comfortable saying that I don't have a soul.

You're free to believe that you have a soul.

And you are free to say you don't have a gender identity... while loudly proclaiming yours for all the world to hear.

 

[The Atheist]

It's a simple, polite request for me to ask that you use exclusively sex-based pronouns. There's no threat at all.

I'm happy to address you with whatever pronoun you want.

Asking me to use gendered pronouns when I'm talking about other people isn't rude, it's absurd and laughable.

 

[arthwollipot]

I have told you this already. In this very thread.

Have you not been reading my posts with the intent to communicate and understand?

I apologise. I must have missed it. Can you direct me to the post please?

Okay, this made me giggle. Well worded!

There may be an answer to your questions somewhere here.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I have a very strong principle when it comes to the distinction between male and female, and the way that distinction plays into the lives of female humans. Pronouns are part and parcel of that principle.

But this thread isn't about that: you won't call a male person, who has always been male, and does not claim to be transgender, "he". You are using the wrong word by your own principles of male and female.

I won't abandon my principles to assuage someone else's feelings.

You did, and are abandoning your principles: you're willing to trample on the traditional understanding of male and female in order to punish the non-traditional understanding. You are burning down your house to spite the house next door.

On the other hand, I also won't contradict their belief.

I wouldn't call a male forum member who says they identify as transgender "he".

Which isn't the case that sparked this thread. You won't, apparently, call a male forum member who doesn't identify as transgender "he" either.

That would be rude, as it would directly contradict their assertion. I won't force my view on them, but I also won't allow their view to be forced on me.

The net result is that I don't use either sex-based or gender-identity-based pronouns at all.

Thereby unsexing and misgendering everybody who isn't one of the vanishingly small minority of people who don't fit into the very traditional definitions of male and female.

They don't get what they want, but I'm not trying to make them take what I want.

Balls! You have a bee in your bonnet about transgenderism and want to vent it outside that topic's quarantined oubliette so you will, in a grand snit, unsex us all. If the JREF won't agree with your strict definitions of what sex is what, then nobody can have a sex, mwah hah hah! "I can't call a man a 'him' because 'they' might be one of 'them'!" And everybody is so hanging on the mighty Emily Cat's posts that if you slip up a single time and accidentally call a transgendered person by whichever pronoun they prefer, that post can be cited forever as legally binding proof that Emily's Cat condones transgenderism! Oh, the horror! There would be mass suicides in the streets, I'm sure, if word spread that Emily's Cat had so dreadfully abandoned the Cause!

Or, you can just use language like normal people, which applies easily and in 99.99999999999% of cases accurately, without fuss. And if a situation arises which presents the horrific aspect of Violating Your Principles by using language normally you can always exercise the option to simply stay silent.