Split Thread Pronouns

[Emily's Cat]

Emily's Cat and I disagree about this. Fancy that.

It's crazy, isn't it? That two people can respectfully disagree on something we both feel very strongly about, yet still remain civil and respectful toward each other! It's just astonishing.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Then I'm sure Emily's Cat will now badger you with the remarks they were making to me. Because it's about principle. Allegedly.

Why would I?

Rolfe heaves to their principles, and I to mine. Neither of us requires the other to set aside those principles just to make the other feel happier. Somehow, we both manage to accept that we have differing views with strong opinions, and still behave like professional adults.

Rolfe has never demanded that I adopt their approach to pronouns on fear of being "rude". I've never demanded that they adopt my approach, nor treated them as a bad person for failing to do so.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Post #435.


I'm glad you acknowledge it's irrelevant, so perhaps you can stop bringing them up. This is the pronouns thread.


I don't know that it necessarily is. Perhaps you should start another thread if you wish to discuss that. I'm certain it will be very interesting to many posters and posterettes.

Your highly selective post snipping has been noted.

 

[Rolfe]

Slightly relevant story. I was at the opera with a friend, seeing Le Nozze di Figaro. The mezzo-soprano singing Cherubino was very good, both as regards her voice, and her dramatic performance as a young man. The costume and make-up departments had done well, binder and all. When discussing her performance at the interval I inadvertently referred to her as "he", then burst out laughing, saying, see how good that performance was!

Our use of the third person singular pronoun appropriate to perceived (or known) sex is instinctive and hard-wired. Linguistically, it's the hardest thing of all to unlearn. If a learner is acquiring a language whose use of third person singular pronouns is different from their native language, it's extraordinarily difficult to force a change. I heard about a Hungarian woman (Hungarian has no sexed third person pronouns, it's as if everyone and everything is "it") who had moved to London, married an Englishman, and had several children. She became so fluent in English she hardly had an accent. But she still had a tendency to call her daughter "he" and her son "she", randomly.

Third person singular pronouns, when used by someone whose native language makes the distinction, reflect the speaker's perception of the sex of the person being referred to. It takes a lot of effort on the speaker's part to over-ride this. An effort which I am not prepared to make.

Pronouns are Rohypnol • Fair Play For Women

There’s a lot of chat around about pronouns right now. Specifically, ‘preferred’ pronouns. By which is usually meant, the pronouns a person would prefer.

fairplayforwomen.com

 

[TragicMonkey]

Why would I?

Are you withdrawing your previous remark because you now agree with Rolfe in post #435 (and confirmed in the next two posts) that using "they" as a singular pronoun is "subverting the language to suit an ideological position"? You disagreed with that notion when you thought it came from me. Are you going to change and stop using singular "they" instead of "he" or "she"?

If you do in fact disagree with Rolfe, why are you not addressing the same post to Rolfe that you addressed to me? To me you said:

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.

You have previously claimed your pronoun usages are an outgrowth of your deeply held principles. Isn't it funny how those principles apply or not based on who the other party in an exchange is? There's a name for that kind of thing, can't quite get it off the tip of my tongue.

 

[Emily's Cat]

An effort which I am not prepared to make.

Even were I prepared, I'm rather disinclined.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Are you withdrawing your previous remark because you now agree with Rolfe in post #435 (and confirmed in the next two posts) that using "they" as a singular pronoun is "subverting the language to suit an ideological position"? You disagreed with that notion when you thought it came from me. Are you going to change and stop using singular "they" instead of "he" or "she"?

If you do in fact disagree with Rolfe, why are you not addressing the same post to Rolfe that you addressed to me? To me you said:

I don't see how it's relevant that Rolfe has a different approach than I do. I've never demanded that other people must use the same approach as I do - not even you. You can use whatever approach you prefer. What you can't do, however, is to force me to adopt your usage.

You have previously claimed your pronoun usages are an outgrowth of your deeply held principles. Isn't it funny how those principles apply or not based on who the other party in an exchange is? There's a name for that kind of thing, can't quite get it off the tip of my tongue.

How I use pronouns reflects my deeply held principles. I apply my principles consistently and without exceptions.

Other people either don't hold the same principles that I do, or they have a different view on how to apply those principles.

It seems that you are very unclear on this concept. It seems that my disinterest in forcing other people to do what I do confuses you. I feel as if you don't have a very strong grasp on the meaning of liberty.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I don't see how it's relevant that Rolfe has a different approach than I do. I've never demanded that other people must use the same approach as I do - not even you. You can use whatever approach you prefer. What you can't do, however, is to force me to adopt your usage.

Nobody can force you, no. But equally you cannot expect others to respect your refusal to participate in common courtesy. You insist upon being rude, you shall be viewed as rude, and you shall be treated as such. It is you who are demanding special treatment -- immunity from common rules of civility. To reiterate, for the very slow and for the deliberate obfuscatory: this thread isn't about people demanding you call transgender people by the "wrong" pronoun, it's about you refusing to call a non-transgender person by the pronoun to which he is entitled by common courtesy, the rules of the English language, cultural tradition, and medical/scientific reality.

But you are dodging the immediate issue which is that you challenged a notion when you thought it came from me, but backed off immediately when it proved to come from Rolfe. The relevance here is that you claim to be acting from principle but you have demonstrated that you are not. Principles do not change when the actor does.

How I use pronouns reflects my deeply held principles. I apply my principles consistently and without exceptions.

Except you challenge some posters for saying a thing and and not others for saying that same thing.

Other people either don't hold the same principles that I do, or they have a different view on how to apply those principles.

Yes. And when they lecture us on their principles they are then open to being challenged upon them. That isn't new.

It seems that you are very unclear on this concept. It seems that my disinterest in forcing other people to do what I do confuses you. I feel as if you don't have a very strong grasp on the meaning of liberty.

How do I appear to be confused? I'm not wondering why you're not attempting to force people to do things. I'm wondering why you think anyone would mistake your insistence on being deliberately rude to certain people in an attempt to draw attention to your ridiculous anti-trans crusade (and, I'm sorry to say, yourself) for genuine principle.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Nobody can force you, no. But equally you cannot expect others to respect your refusal to participate in common courtesy. You insist upon being rude, you shall be viewed as rude, and you shall be treated as such.

You've done nothing but redefine "rude" to support your beliefs. It's not common courtesy to expect other people to lie about their perceptions.

It is you who are demanding special treatment -- immunity from common rules of civility.

They aren't rules in the first place. And I'm not demanding special treatment in any fashion. You're perfectly free to think I'm rude for refusing to adopt your beliefs.

To reiterate, for the very slow and for the deliberate obfuscatory: this thread isn't about people demanding you call transgender people by the "wrong" pronoun, it's about you refusing to call a non-transgender person by the pronoun to which he is entitled by common courtesy, the rules of the English language, cultural tradition, and medical/scientific reality.

It's about a male demanding that a female kowtow to their wishes and wants, with no consideration whatsoever shown for the female's perspective. It's about a bunch of other males jumping in to defend said male about the completely unacceptable "rudeness" of a female who doesn't do as told.

Furthermore, it's a blatant and transparent attempt to create a trap. I'm not going to blithely walk into that trap, I will continue doing as I've done without issue for over 5 years: I will use sex neutral language as much as possible, including third-person pronouns.

You don't have to like it.

I'm not going to abandon my principles and kowtow to your agenda just because you don't like it. Frankly, I don't give a crap if you like it or not. You aren't important enough for me to care about your feelings, nor do you have any authority to demand that I change my ways so that you and your buddy's feelings aren't slightly bent out of shape.

Get over yourself.

 

[Emily's Cat]

But you are dodging the immediate issue which is that you challenged a notion when you thought it came from me, but backed off immediately when it proved to come from Rolfe. The relevance here is that you claim to be acting from principle but you have demonstrated that you are not. Principles do not change when the actor does.

You keep saying this, but I cannot figure out what you're referencing. I strongly suspect that you are incredibly confused on this. But hey, if you'd like to make your case, kindly provide some links to the interactions in question with some summary of why you think I'm unprincipled.

 

[Emily's Cat]

But you are dodging the immediate issue which is that you challenged a notion when you thought it came from me, but backed off immediately when it proved to come from Rolfe. The relevance here is that you claim to be acting from principle but you have demonstrated that you are not. Principles do not change when the actor does.

You keep saying this, but I cannot figure out what you're referencing. I strongly suspect that you are incredibly confused on this. But hey, if you'd like to make your case, kindly provide some links to the interactions in question with some summary of why you think I'm unprincipled.

Except you challenge some posters for saying a thing and and not others for saying that same thing.

What thing do you think I've challenged? Can you provide support for your accusation?

Yes. And when they lecture us on their principles they are then open to being challenged upon them. That isn't new.

What's your point?

How do I appear to be confused? I'm not wondering why you're not attempting to force people to do things. I'm wondering why you think anyone would mistake your insistence on being deliberately rude to certain people in an attempt to draw attention to your ridiculous anti-trans crusade (and, I'm sorry to say, yourself) for genuine principle.

You think it's some nefarious thing to keep to my principles, and you're unwilling to accept a neutral approach that causes no harm. The only "harm" is that I don't roll over and do what you want me to do.

 

[TragicMonkey]

You've done nothing but redefine "rude" to support your beliefs. It's not common courtesy to expect other people to lie about their perceptions.

Arth is a "he", he asked to be called "he", you refused. That's rude.

They aren't rules in the first place.

Didn't a mod weigh on in this one and point out that misgendering someone is a breach of the civility rule?

And I'm not demanding special treatment in any fashion. You're perfectly free to think I'm rude for refusing to adopt your beliefs.

I'm not asking you to adopt any beliefs.

It's about a male demanding that a female kowtow to their wishes and wants, with no consideration whatsoever shown for the female's perspective. It's about a bunch of other males jumping in to defend said male about the completely unacceptable "rudeness" of a female who doesn't do as told.

LOL. You do love playing the martyr! But that's not appropriate here because the issue I'm taking you to task for is your misuse of pronouns in a manner that, to quote Rolfe --a woman, by the way --"is subverting the language to suit an ideological position". You objected to that characterization when you mistakenly thought I said it myself, but suddenly are silent on that after you learned it came from Rolfe. This has nothing to do with the sexes of the posters in question. Additionally, if your principle is truly to be sex neutral you wouldn't fall back to "I'm female!" as a defense of your argument.

Furthermore, it's a blatant and transparent attempt to create a trap. I'm not going to blithely walk into that trap,

You already did walk into it: you attacked Rolfe because you mistook her statement for mine. Faced with either standing by that attack or retracting it you have attempted to reset the thread back to the beginning and obfuscate.

I will continue doing as I've done without issue for over 5 years: I will use sex neutral language as much as possible, including third-person pronouns.

Gonna "subvert the language to suit an ideological position" no mater what, eh?

You don't have to like it.

Finding behavior unacceptable isn't the same thing as simply not liking it. Only the rogue benefits from characterizing objections to his or her misdeeds as being a matter of personal taste.

I'm not going to abandon my principles and kowtow to your agenda

What agenda? That in English (and manners) males should be called "he" when they request it? Again: this is nothing to do with transgenderism. The person asking you to call him "he" is not transgender. Pointing out that it's rude to violate the English language in this fashion is "an agenda"? I'm not the one subverting the language to suit an ideological position, you are!

just because you don't like it. Frankly, I don't give a crap if you like it or not. You aren't important enough for me to care about your feelings, nor do you have any authority to demand that I change my ways

Didn't imagine you did, didn't claim I was, didn't claim I did. But if you don't want people to talk to you you should stop talking to them. If you don't want to be criticized you shouldn't say things open to criticism.

so that you and your buddy's feelings aren't slightly bent out of shape.

What a giveaway! It's not about principle, it's about "sides"! You can't object to Rolfe's statement because she's on your "side" on the transgenderism issue. You lump me and Arth together and imagine I'm posting as I do because I'm on his "side". Except in the specific matter of using the singular "they" I'm actually not: I agree with Rolfe on that, and stick to "he" or "she" unless otherwise requested.

Get over yourself.

I'm not the one asserting that as a matter of "principle" I can subvert the language to suit an ideological position. Nor do I characterize disagreement as persecution.

 

[TragicMonkey]

You keep saying this, but I cannot figure out what you're referencing. I strongly suspect that you are incredibly confused on this. But hey, if you'd like to make your case, kindly provide some links to the interactions in question with some summary of why you think I'm unprincipled.

What thing do you think I've challenged? Can you provide support for your accusation?

What's your point?

Scroll up. Rolfe said that using the singular "they" instead of "he" or "she" is "subverting the language to suit an ideological position". You disagreed with that statement when you thought it came from me, but after I pointed out I was quoting Rolfe you backed off. Since then you've been expressing confusion and attempting to drag the issue into nouns and transgenderism.

You think it's some nefarious thing to keep to my principles, and you're unwilling to accept a neutral approach that causes no harm. The only "harm" is that I don't roll over and do what you want me to do.

I don't think your pronoun usage is a principle at all. I don't agree that "a neutral approach" is what you're doing, nor do I agree that it "causes no harm". And it's not about "making you do" anything -- why on earth do you characterize disagreement in this fashion? That's a very childish way to characterize disagreement.

 

[Emily's Cat]

You do love playing the martyr! But that's not appropriate here because the issue I'm taking you to task for is your misuse of pronouns in a manner that, to quote Rolfe --a woman, by the way --"is subverting the language to suit an ideological position". You objected to that characterization when you mistakenly thought I said it myself, but suddenly are silent on that after you learned it came from Rolfe.

First off, I missed a step in there, but I wasn't being rude to you. I wasn't even snippy. I was adding why I don't think it's subverting language to use neutral language. It's not ideal, but it's better than calling everyone "it" which is the next best option available to me.

Furthermore, I've had this discussion with Rolfe. We don't agree on this, we've talked about it. But somehow, we both are able to behave like adults and concede that the other has reasons for the approach they've taken... and we each understand that we can't force other people to our way of thinking.

Seriously, it's like you missed the entire exchange between Rolfe and I in this thread. About this exact point of disagreement and the fact that neither of us feels it necessary to chastise or berate the other for not adopting our views.

You already did walk into it: you attacked Rolfe because you mistook her statement for mine. Faced with either standing by that attack or retracting it you have attempted to reset the thread back to the beginning and obfuscate.

Wow. You are really sensitive. I didn't attack anyone. Providing my justification for why neutral language is appropriate and should be acceptable isn't an attack.

It really seems like you're just determined to make me a villain. Does that allow you to justify your intolerance and dislike of diversity?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Arth is a "he", he asked to be called "he", you refused. That's rude.

I think that trying to shame and coerce me into betraying my principles is rude.

 

[Emily's Cat]

What agenda? That in English (and manners) males should be called "he" when they request it? Again: this is nothing to do with transgenderism. The person asking you to call him "he" is not transgender. Pointing out that it's rude to violate the English language in this fashion is "an agenda"? I'm not the one subverting the language to suit an ideological position, you are!

This is disingenuous. You know it's disingenuous, I know you're being disingenuous, we ALL know it's disingenuous.

 

[The Atheist]

It really seems like you're just determined to make me a villain.

I don't think you need any help in that regard.

Does that allow you to justify your intolerance and dislike of diversity?

Nice swerve!

Considering you're determined not to embrace someone merely asking to be referred to with male pronouns, the intolerance is 100% yours.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Scroll up. Rolfe said that using the singular "they" instead of "he" or "she" is "subverting the language to suit an ideological position". You disagreed with that statement when you thought it came from me, but after I pointed out I was quoting Rolfe you backed off. Since then you've been expressing confusion and attempting to drag the issue into nouns and transgenderism.

I didn't "back off". It's irrelevant. I've had this discussion with Rolfe already - neither of us felt it necessary to call the other names about it. I don't demand that Rolfe use singular they... and Rolfe doesn't demand that I use sex-based pronouns. Easy peasy. You could do the same thing, you know... just let me do this the way I've been doing it for 5 years without a problem. You aren't required to join in and impugn my character.

Especially because you know damned good and well that we're only having this discussion about pronouns because of gender identity. Don't pretend otherwise, you know that's the entire underlying reason that ANYONE gives a damn about pronouns in the first place. And you know that's the entire reason that arthwollipot put pronouns in their user-name in the first place: to signal support for gender identity ideology.

I don't think your pronoun usage is a principle at all. I don't agree that "a neutral approach" is what you're doing, nor do I agree that it "causes no harm".

Why do you think that sex and gender-identity neutral pronouns aren't neutral?
What harm is caused by using neutral pronouns?

it's not about "making you do" anything -- why on earth do you characterize disagreement in this fashion? That's a very childish way to characterize disagreement.

Attempting to publicly shame me into adopting your preferred language use is trying to make me do something. Calling me childish for not rolling over at your wish is also an attempt to publicly shame me into doing what you want me to do.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Considering you're determined not to embrace someone merely asking to be referred to with male pronouns, the intolerance is 100% yours.

Do you genuinely think that tolerance requires that I do what other people ask me to do, even if I disagree?

I'd like you to actually think about this, rather than resorting to petty swipes.

The rules here disallow "misgendering" someone.
This means that if poster who has been open about being female decides that they identify as transgender, I would be breaking the rules if I referred to that poster as "she".
I don't want to be forced to refer to anyone using pronouns based on gender identity; I think pronouns should be based on sex.
If I were to use sex-based pronouns for all the people who don't identify as transgender, there's no problem, right?

But... what happens when I'm talking about someone who does identify as transgender?
If I refer to them using sex-based pronouns, I'm breaking a rule, and it's highly likely to be viewed as intentionally insulting.
If I refer to only those individuals with neutral pronouns, then I'm singling them out for different treatment which is rude, and is likely to be viewed as intentionally insulting.

On the other hand, if I just say "screw it, I'm not going to bother with sex-based pronouns at all", then everyone is treated the same. Nobody is "misgendered", as I never reference sex or gender identity at all.

Why do you think this is an unacceptable compromise for me to make?
What alternative do you offer me that will NOT result in me breaking rules OR me having to use gender-identity-based pronouns - something to which I strongly object?

 

[The Atheist]

... OR me having to use gender-identity-based pronouns - something to which I strongly object?

I'd say climb down from the high horse and show some common courtesy, but I know that won't work.

I advise continuing to post walls of text until everyone else gives up.