Split Thread Pronouns

[Emily's Cat]

You (i.e. @Emily's Cat) had no more basis for thinking @arthwollipot's request had anything to do with gender-identity than anyone reading this thread would have

You mean other than actually, for realsies, unquestionably knowing exactly why arthwollipot has pronouns in their name in the first place?

You might not be aware that gender identity is the underlying issue here, but the rest of us are well aware. arthwollipot is 100% aware that they only added their preferred pronouns to signal solidarity with people who have transgender identities.

For courtesy’s sake, I’ll assume that you’re simply in the dark about this topic. Now that you’re up to speed, I hope it will save you from writing long ascetic posts to “correct” me about a topic on which I’m more knowledgeable than you.

But hey, kudos on taking the opportunity to call me names under the tissue-thin veil of pretended civility. Great job you, demonstrating what a respectful and considerate person you are.

 

[Thermal]

@arthwollipot let me try to explain my position with an analogy, understanding the pitfalls that come with that.

Imagine you’re at a very large wedding with hundreds of people. The host knows you’re an atheist and opposed to organized religion, so they tell you that they’ll be doing communion and prayers during the ceremonies, and asks you to be respectful.

You decide that you’ll be respectful by being still and silent during the religious parts, because you don’t share the host’s beliefs but you also don’t wish to be intentionally offensive.

One of the other attendees (Alex for convenience) notices that you’re staying seated and silent, and asks you to join in communion and saying the prayer. Alex tells you that it’s rude not to, and that if you refuse to take part in the religious observances you’re an ass.

Do you agree with Alex that it’s simple courtesy that costs you nothing? Do you take active part in the religious aspects, despite your disbelief?

This analogy fails on too many basic elements to be illustrative. It's so far off the mark, it borders on deceptive.

You would never, ever be asked to take communion in a church you don't belong to, by anyone. Churches are generally very prohibitive of non-church members doing so. They treat it as a special.privelege you need to work to earn, not encourage randos to join in. Alex would be entirely out in left field to request such a thing.

Another failure is this incessant trying to make common courtesies into religious dogma. The asker is not asking you to believe anything. They are asking you to use a term that doesn't make it seem like you are intentionally trying to publicly humiliate them to others. It doesn't mean you believe what they believe.

In keeping with the religious theme, priests are often called father, and nuns called sister. Even if someone has no respect at all for the Catholic Church, they will most often use the titles because to not do so is making an unnecessary spectacle out of a triviality. "Showing them Catholics who's boss", if you will. Why deliberately get hateful? So everyone knows you are hateful? There's no benefit, just spreading a little more misery around in a world that has its fill already.

Eta: your reply in.post #2 to arthwollipots request concluded with "You aren't special enough for me to upend my entire approach." There is no way to interpret that but as deliberate rudeness.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

This made me laugh. Couldn't help it.

Now that you’re up to speed, I hope it will save you from writing long ascetic posts to “correct” me about a topic on which I’m more knowledgeable than you.

Followed by this:

But hey, kudos on taking the opportunity to call me names under the tissue-thin veil of pretended civility. Great job you, demonstrating what a respectful and considerate person you are.

I have not disputed your claim that others have called you those "names".

Nor did I in any way suggest that the context of this thread called for you to list those specific names while telling us how aggrieved you are about how, according to you yourself, those names may have entered the minds of some who read what you write, or have gotten to know you in some other context.

I'm sure we both deplore the effrontery of others. Why, some of them may even go so far as to think they have as much right to form an opinion of you as you have to form an opinion of yourself!

If you don't watch out, some of them might end up thinking they're allowed to decide for themselves which pronouns they prefer or use.

 

[The Atheist]

You mean other than actually, for realsies, unquestionably knowing exactly why arthwollipot has pronouns in their name in the first place?k

There's only one person here trying to turn this in The Thread That Shall Not Be Named Mk II, and it's not him.

 

[arthwollipot]

You asked that I make a special accommodation for you, and have decided I’m an ass because I declined to treat you differently than I treat everyone else.

No I didn't. I literally asked you to use masculine pronouns for me because I am a man. That's not a special accommodation. That's now normal people treat normal people. What you're doing is performative martyrdom. Vice signalling.

What's wrong with recognising that I am male and use masculine pronouns? Literally 90% of the male population uses masculine pronouns. I'm not asking you for any special treatment, just common courtesy, which you are actively refusing.

And you wonder why I haven't been aware of anything you've said for at least five years. I'm starting to regret my decision to re-engage with you.

You might not be aware that gender identity is the underlying issue here, but the rest of us are well aware. arthwollipot is 100% aware that they only added their preferred pronouns to signal solidarity with people who have transgender identities.

You're a mind-reader now? No, that's not the only reason I did it.

 

[Emily's Cat]

No I didn't. I literally asked you to use masculine pronouns for me because I am a man. That's not a special accommodation. That's now normal people treat normal people.

I use neutral language for EVERYONE. You're asking me to make a special exception to that practice FOR YOU. Whether you realize it or not, you are, in actual fact, expecting me to change my habits in order to assuage your feelings.

And it's for something you've already said you don't actually care about. You're asking for an accommodation that isn't even important to you.

What you're doing is performative martyrdom. Vice signalling.

Ahem...

As it turns out, I don't actually mind you using they/them. I wanted to specifically call you out because of the fact that I have, for a long time, offered my pronouns freely right there under my user name and you chose (choose) to ignore that, which is what I think is rude.

Who exactly is being performative here? I've been consistently using neutral terms, including pronouns, for over five years. It's not a stunt, it's not a game to me.

What's wrong with recognising that I am male and use masculine pronouns? Literally 90% of the male population uses masculine pronouns. I'm not asking you for any special treatment, just common courtesy, which you are actively refusing.

*If* the possibility of using only sex-based pronouns were a feasible option, I might be inclined to accommodate your wishes. But that's not the case.

Please think this through, I'm interested in your honest response. Were I to relinquish my principles and start using sex-based pronouns... would you defend me if I referred to Eddie Izzard or Laverne Cox or Caitlyn Jenner or Dylan Mulvaney with sex-based pronouns? Were I to refer to prior (?) member Boudicca with a sex-based pronoun, would you have my back for that? Or would you expect me to use the gender-identity-based pronouns that those individuals prefer? All of them are males, and thus it would be appropriate for me to use masculine sex-based pronouns in reference to them.

And you wonder why I haven't been aware of anything you've said for at least five years. I'm starting to regret my decision to re-engage with you.

Why? Simply because I refuse to bow to your will? It's entirely possible to have a respectful, civil, adult discussion on topics of disagreement. I haven't been uncivil toward you in this discussion, I haven't insulted you - not even by insinuation. I haven't even gone so far as to imply that you're rude or an ass for not giving me what I want.

You're a mind-reader now? No, that's not the only reason I did it.

Not the only reason... but it is a fairly large part of the reason, is it not? Perhaps I've inferred wrongly that it's the only reason. Perhaps you've been concerned that people will mistake your profile pic for that of a female, and feel a deep need to make sure they know you're male in addition to signalling your allyship.

But I don't believe it would accurate or honest for you to claim that such allyship is not a considerable reason for you having placed pronouns in your user title.

 

[Emily's Cat]

This made me laugh. Couldn't help it.



Followed by this:

I have not disputed your claim that others have called you those "names".

Nor did I in any way suggest that the context of this thread called for you to list those specific names while telling us how aggrieved you are about how, according to you yourself, those names may have entered the minds of some who read what you write, or have gotten to know you in some other context.

I'm sure we both deplore the effrontery of others. Why, some of them may even go so far as to think they have as much right to form an opinion of you as you have to form an opinion of yourself!

If you don't watch out, some of them might end up thinking they're allowed to decide for themselves which pronouns they prefer or use.

Are you interested in actually discussing this topic, or is your purpose here to pile on and berate me?

 

[Emily's Cat]

@arthwollipot what reciprocity do you see between us?

 

[arthwollipot]

I use neutral language for EVERYONE. You're asking me to make a special exception to that practice FOR YOU. Whether you realize it or not, you are, in actual fact, expecting me to change my habits in order to assuage your feelings.

And it's for something you've already said you don't actually care about. You're asking for an accommodation that isn't even important to you.

It's not a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ accommodation!. You go out of your way to use gender neutral pronouns. Not only do you go out of your way to do that, you by your own admission do it for a reason that I think is completely ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ stupid - your insane theory that gender identity doesn't exist.

All I'm asking you is to not do that. Don't go to that extra effort. Do what every other person on the ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ planet does, and use the obvious pronouns.

My apologies for being stereotypically Australian, but ◊◊◊◊ me.

Please think this through, I'm interested in your honest response. Were I to relinquish my principles and start using sex-based pronouns... would you defend me if I referred to Eddie Izzard or Laverne Cox or Caitlyn Jenner or Dylan Mulvaney with sex-based pronouns?

If you used the correct ones, absolutely not. But considering you're deadnaming them, I know you wouldn't do that. You would stubbornly use the wrong ones in order to make your point.

But that still isn't a reason for using gender neutral pronouns exclusively for everyone, because those for whom the obvious pronoun applies vastly outnumber those for whom it might not.

Susie Izzard actually still uses her previous name and pronouns alongside her new ones, so I'm not even sure that's a good example for you to have picked.

Why? Simply because I refuse to bow to your will? It's entirely possible to have a respectful, civil, adult discussion on topics of disagreement. I haven't been uncivil toward you in this discussion, I haven't insulted you - not even by insinuation. I haven't even gone so far as to imply that you're rude or an ass for not giving me what I want.

That's a load of horse ◊◊◊◊. You disrespect me, my opinions, and my friends and family with practically every statement you make on the subject. I asked you to please use my pronouns and everybody else's correctly and you stubbornly and insolently refuse to acquiesce to this very simple request, resulting in this so-far-21 page argument. Uncivil barely describes it.

Not the only reason... but it is a fairly large part of the reason, is it not?

No, it is not.

Are you interested in actually discussing this topic, or is your purpose here to pile on and berate me?

Are you interested in actually discussing this topic or is your purpose here to stubbornly and performatively stick to your obviously very disliked principles?

You have rudely and insultingly shown absolutely no inclination to seriously consider anything I have said on the topic, so why the hell should I continue to engage?

 

[Matthew Best]

Literally 90% of the male population uses masculine pronouns.

Where did you get that figure from?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Where did you get that figure from?

Can't speak for anybody else, but Christopher Lee's survey reporting Linguistic Pronoun Usage Industry Statistics offers some interesting statistics, and cites its sources. For what it's worth...

Among the "Key Takeaways":

​

7 The use of the singular 'they' increased by 313% in news media over the last decade​

​

8 Use of 'they/them' in social media bios increased by 50% between 2020 and 2022​

​

9 42% of English speakers feel that 'they' as a singular pronoun is grammatically incorrect​

Among the statistics reported for "Identity and Demographic Distribution":

​

Statistic 15​

6% of the US population uses pronouns that do not match their birth-assigned sex​

​

Statistic 17​

14% of US high schoolers identify as something other than cisgender, affecting pronoun demand​

​

Statistic 20​

9% of people in the US use a neopronoun in at least one social setting​

Among the "Linguistic Trends and Media" statistics:

​

Statistic 5​

9% of all Twitter users in the US have pronouns in their bio​

​

Statistic 8​

The Associated Press Stylebook officially accepted the singular 'they' in 2017​

​

Statistic 16​

The Oxford English Dictionary added the singular 'they' in 2018, tracing its roots to 1375​

​

Statistic 19​

18% of published authors in the last 5 years have used the singular 'they' in formal academic writing​

Among the "Social Perception and Awareness" statistics:

​

Statistic 2​

1 in 5 Americans know someone who uses gender-neutral pronouns​

​

Statistic 9​

44% of Americans believe that people should use the pronouns assigned at birth​

​

Statistic 10​

58% of people feel that using incorrect pronouns intentionally is harassment​

​

Statistic 16​

43% of people believe that using a person's requested pronouns is a sign of basic respect​

 

[Emily's Cat]

It's not a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ accommodation!. You go out of your way to use gender neutral pronouns. Not only do you go out of your way to do that, you by your own admission do it for a reason that I think is completely ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ stupid - your insane theory that gender identity doesn't exist.

All I'm asking you is to not do that. Don't go to that extra effort. Do what every other person on the ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ planet does, and use the obvious pronouns.

My apologies for being stereotypically Australian, but ◊◊◊◊ me.


If you used the correct ones, absolutely not. But considering you're deadnaming them, I know you wouldn't do that. You would stubbornly use the wrong ones in order to make your point.

But that still isn't a reason for using gender neutral pronouns exclusively for everyone, because those for whom the obvious pronoun applies vastly outnumber those for whom it might not.

Susie Izzard actually still uses her previous name and pronouns alongside her new ones, so I'm not even sure that's a good example for you to have picked.


That's a load of horse ◊◊◊◊. You disrespect me, my opinions, and my friends and family with practically every statement you make on the subject. I asked you to please use my pronouns and everybody else's correctly and you stubbornly and insolently refuse to acquiesce to this very simple request, resulting in this so-far-21 page argument. Uncivil barely describes it.


No, it is not.


Are you interested in actually discussing this topic or is your purpose here to stubbornly and performatively stick to your obviously very disliked principles?

You have rudely and insultingly shown absolutely no inclination to seriously consider anything I have said on the topic, so why the hell should I continue to engage?

You’ve now abandoned all pretense of civil discourse. You appear to have fallen back to denigration and insult because I will not surrender my principles to your desires. You are unwilling to tolerate a respectfully neutral approach.

It appears that you believe yourself superior, and think I should submit to your will.

You don’t control my beliefs, and you have no authority or importance with which to expect that I should bend to your will.

I don’t believe there’s any further reason to continue engaging with you. You’ve demonstrated that you aren’t capable of civil disagreement.

 

[arthwollipot]

It appears that you believe yourself superior, and think I should submit to your will.

This conversation is over. Error corrected.

If anyone else would like to continue discussing pronouns, I'm more than happy to.