Split Thread Pronouns

[Thermal]

You lost me. Where does confusion enter into a conversation between two third parties, referring to someone else by their observable sex?

Because when one uses one pronoun, and others use another, it gets bound to be confusing?

A sexed pronoun can be handy in a vacuum, but after a preference is openly stated, why is sex important anymore? The referent's preference is clarified, and there is no reason to insist that their genitalia is necessary to use pronouns.

 

[TragicMonkey]

What I don't think is a valid strategy is arthwollipot's insistence that he cannot be properly referred to in gender-neutral terms. That he must be referred to as a "he". Not because he's biologically male, no. That would undermine the entire toxic, antisocial program to equivocate biological sex as much as possible. No, he has to be referred to as "he" because of some undefinable, un-quantifiable, and frankly irrelevant social construct. The only thing that happens when EC refers to arth as "they/them" instead of "he/him" is that somewhere a gender essentialist doesn't get their wings.

LOL. "You're doing what I think is the right thing but for the wrong reason because of what I assume you're thinking."

The crusade demands loyalty so strong it doesn't even accept agreement from the enemy!

 

[theprestige]

Because when one uses one pronoun, and others use another, it gets bound to be confusing?

How so?

If I use the conventional, time-tested reference to someone's observable, objective physical characteristic, there is no confusion unless the person I'm talking to literally cannot see what I'm talking about. Even if they prefer to use the contrafactual reference term instead.

The only time confusion arises is when they lead with the contrafactual reference term. Which, yes, using the wrong words to refer to things does create confusion. Like I said, this whole agenda of trying to equivocate on the objective fact of biological sex is dickheaded, toxic, and anti-social.

Even you saying that you know that particular dude prefers to be referred to as a lady establishes that you are not actually confused when someone refers to him as a dude.

A sexed pronoun can be handy in a vacuum, but after a preference is openly stated, why is sex important anymore? The referent's preference is clarified, and there is no reason to insist that their genitalia is necessary to use pronouns.

It's not their preference that determines third-person pronouns. It's the third person's preference. It's not how you see yourself, it's how I see you. Why isn't the referrer's preference respected? It's based on a preference for observing and referring to objective facts about reality. Seems to me that's a much more important preference to take into account, than someone's contrafactual headcanon.

 

[theprestige]

LOL. "You're doing what I think is the right thing but for the wrong reason because of what I assume you're thinking."

You lost me. Who are you saying is doing what I think is the right thing?

 

[TragicMonkey]

You lost me. Who are you saying is doing what I think is the right thing?

Arth. He uses "he", and wants to be called "he".

 

[theprestige]

Arth. He uses "he", and wants to be called "he".

He loses nothing if someone wants to take a gender-neutral approach to the social constructs of gender.

 

[TragicMonkey]

He loses nothing if someone wants to take a gender-neutral approach to the social constructs of gender.

But doing so is subverting the language to suit an ideological position. It doesn't have to be a matter of "loss" in order to be unacceptable.

 

[Thermal]

How so?

If I use the conventional, time-tested reference to someone's observable, objective physical characteristic, there is no confusion unless the person I'm talking to literally cannot see what I'm talking about.

Only if they have to keep in mind that you will be using different pronouns than everyone else. Like, a transwoman that presents as a woman is no big deal to remember- it's what they are clearly identifying as, no matter your concern with what is between their legs. But remembering that you want to express your disapproval and will use terms you please is less easily kept in mind.

Even if they prefer to use the contrafactual reference term instead.

There it is again- why are you so concerned with their junk?

The only time confusion arises is when they lead with the contrafactual reference term. Which, yes, using the wrong words to refer to things does create confusion. Like I said, this whole agenda of trying to equivocate on the objective fact of biological sex is dickheaded, toxic, and anti-social.

To you. To most others, it just ain't no skin off the back.

Even you saying that you know that particular dude prefers to be referred to as a lady establishes that you are not actually confused when someone refers to him as a dude.

Because I already know you and the role you take in such discussions. Among a group I wasn't familiar with the positions of (or didn't have enough interactions with to recall), the confusion is real.

It's not their preference that determines third-person pronouns. It's the third person's preference. It's not how you see yourself, it's how I see you.

Ok. And when someone expresses a counteintuitive (to you) preference, why do you feel its imperative to take your stand? You know it will make this person more comfortable, and its no skin off your back. Why this posturing about how intellectually compromised you would be to accommodate them?

Why isn't the referrer's preference respected?

Because it serves no other purpose than dogwhistling. There's simply no other benefit.

It's based on a preference for observing and referring to objective facts about reality. Seems to me that's a much more important preference to take into account, than someone's contrafactual headcanon.

Pretty sure you wouldn't be calling a stranger or acquaintance fat or ugly or crippled or whatever though, no matter the 'factual reality'. You would show the courtesy we all do. You're not selling your soul to show effortless courtesies, man.

 

[arthwollipot]

You're against use of "they" in place of "he" or "she"? On the basis that using it is subverting the language to suit an ideological position?

Yes.

What about the use of "they" instead of "he or she"?

What I don't think is a valid strategy is arthwollipot's insistence that he cannot be properly referred to in gender-neutral terms.

I have never said that, let alone insisted it. I asked one specific person to please use the pronouns that I provided, and they refused.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Even you saying that you know that particular dude prefers to be referred to as a lady establishes that you are not actually confused when someone refers to him as a dude.

 

[Emily's Cat]

But doing so is subverting the language to suit an ideological position. It doesn't have to be a matter of "loss" in order to be unacceptable.

No, it's not. It's threading the needle between two irreconcilable positions. I cannot simultaneously use sex-based pronouns and gender-identity-based pronouns. But I can use neutral pronouns that make no reference at all to either sex or gender identity, and thereby avoid the entire mess.

Were your logic to hold, then you would also be berating me for referring to "police officers" instead of policemen and/or policewomen. The same holds for all other previously sex-based terms that are now very commonly neutral.

 

[theprestige]

But doing so is subverting the language to suit an ideological position. It doesn't have to be a matter of "loss" in order to be unacceptable.

No, it's not. It's threading the needle between two irreconcilable positions. I cannot simultaneously use sex-based pronouns and gender-identity-based pronouns. But I can use neutral pronouns that make no reference at all to either sex or gender identity, and thereby avoid the entire mess.

Were your logic to hold, then you would also be berating me for referring to "police officers" instead of policemen and/or policewomen. The same holds for all other previously sex-based terms that are now very commonly neutral.

Make stewardesses great again.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I have never said that, let alone insisted it. I asked one specific person to please use the pronouns that I provided, and they refused.

This sounds rather like you're singling me out for your attention, and expecting that I do something that you do not expect anyone else to do.

Why should I do so? You aren't important enough for me to jeopardize my own principles. And you have no authority over me. There's absolutely no reason at all that you calling me names and attacking my character would lead me to bend to your will.

Especially because we all know perfectly well that you would not set aside your principles at my request.

 

[TragicMonkey]

No, it's not. It's threading the needle between two irreconcilable positions. I cannot simultaneously use sex-based pronouns and gender-identity-based pronouns. But I can use neutral pronouns that make no reference at all to either sex or gender identity, and thereby avoid the entire mess.

I was quoting Rolfe's argument. Scroll up to read that exchange.

Were your logic to hold, then you would also be berating me for referring to "police officers" instead of policemen and/or policewomen. The same holds for all other previously sex-based terms that are now very commonly neutral.

You still seem to be confused on the difference between nouns and pronouns. Nouns are not the topic of discussion in this thread. I don't think they're related, and I haven't said anything about them. You keep bringing them up. Perhaps an elementary school teacher or teacheress can aid you in distinguishing between them.