"Misgendering" is now a federal offense

[novaphile]

What is "fae" supposed to refer to?

I would assume the seelie and unseelie (i.e. members of the 'fairy' realm).

I normally see it written as 'fey' but often get caught by spelling changes across continents.

 

[Orphia Nay]

If someone wanted to harrass/insult but get around the misgendering policy they might mock the policy itself in front of the trans person instead of misusing their pronouns, hence the need for the policy about the policy.

Right, and I'm certain that was the intent. But if someone's policy is to use forms of addressin a way the recipient doesn't like, does the school have to have a policy about their policy of policy? What if someone's name is Paul and they involve police? The hearing will be a tongue twister.

Indeed. The first step in silencing dissent - "it ist verboten to question ze rulez - ve vill ask ze questions!!"

So that person could mock the policy about the policy - so you'd need a policy about the policy about the policy, and then a policy about the policy about the policy about the policy. Where would it end .... is it turtles all the way down!?

Slippery Slope arguments.

It's not policy all the way down, just policy would cover it.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Fae? Literally one of those gender-fluid, non binary genders, that still somehow mean anything but male. Literally. That's the meaning given by the one who coined it: fluid between anything except male.

I suppose it saves a lot of explaining if it can mean fluid between neither gender with you, and female with my boyfriend

 

[smartcooky]

Then despite your protestations you do not support trans people. You oppose them - you deny them their identity, their existence.

This is complete bull-****. I believe they think they are women, but that isn't the same as believing they are women. In my world, the reality-based one I grew up in, woman = biological female and man = biological male. In my 68 years on this planet, I have yet to see any convincing science based evidence that my beliefs are incorrect.

And you wonder why people call you transphobic.

No, I don't wonder at all. I know exactly why that tiny number of people here (you, thiaboxerken, plague311 and maybe a couple of others), think I'm transphobic for sticking to my guns as regards the facts of science... they (and you) are science-deniers, similar to other science-deniers such as Flat Earthers, moon hoax deniers and Young-Earth Creationists.

 

[d4m10n]

No, you should always use the pronoun that the other person wants you to use.

Why?

If I were to say that you should always call someone "Doctor" if they want you to call them that, would you agree to that norm or would you perhaps quibble about whether or not they earned it?

 

[jt512]

It's a neopronoun. Do you need me to define what a pronoun is?

No. But can explain why "fae," specifically, as opposed to some other neopronoun?

 

[arthwollipot]

Why?

To paraphrase Data, "One of them is my pronoun. The other is not."

If I were to say that you should always call someone "Doctor" if they want you to call them that, would you agree or would younstatr quibbling about whether they earned it?

"Doctor" is not a protected term. Anybody can call themself "doctor" without qualifications. If you had said "professor" instead, I would have said no, they have to earn that title. You don't have to earn a pronoun.

 

[arthwollipot]

No. But can explain why "fae," specifically, as opposed to some other neopronoun?

Personal choice. Fae happens to like it. But as I said, they will also accept "they".

 

[jt512]

Personal choice. Fae happens to like it. But as I said, they will also accept "they".

I'm not referring to any by the pronoun "fae." I would go along with "they."

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Slippery Slope arguments.

It's not policy all the way down, just policy would cover it.

No. It's not a slippery slope if it's already explicitly forbidden to question the policy. It's only slippery slope if it's not already the case, but it supposedly inevitably leads there.

It's like claiming in May 1982 that opposing Argentina is based on a slippery slope to where they attack the UK. It's bloody well not a slippery slope if it's already happening since last month

 

[arthwollipot]

I'm not referring to any by the pronoun "fae." I would go along with "they."

That's fine. I do too.

 

[novaphile]

Nobody's saying they can no longer go in there. And I'm a little surprised that you of all people would accuse me of misogyny.

Well sometimes, people use confronting arguments to try and get others to confront their inner thinking.

In my case, I don't see why the feelings of a man, trump the feelings of a woman, when it comes to female only, single sex spaces.

Before the discussions on this board, I was 'meh' about the whole thing, because, generally I believe in live and let live.

But the women posting, caused me to see that it was always "man is more important than woman, so women don't get a say" and that caused me to change my thinking.

Being raised by a feminist, I'm all too aware of the huge battles women had to undertake to be allowed to participate in the world, seeing people writing about the reintroduction of the 'urinary leash' through womens' bathrooms being taken away again, is quite confronting.

Remember, I come from a position of:

Anyone can wear whatever they want,
Anyone can do anything they like with their consenting sexual partners,
Anyone can do any job that they are qualified for.

Regardless of race, colour, religion, sex, sexual preferences.

As I've said before, I have also recently realised that I'm an egalitarian, rather than a feminist.

So I'm very suspicious of anything like:

"The feelings of one man, automatically over-rule the feelings of every possible woman."

 

[d4m10n]

To paraphrase Data, "One of them is my pronoun. The other is not."

That isn't an argument, is it? If you want to persuade people to adopt your rule, you should consider making an affirmative case for it.

 

[arthwollipot]

That isn't an argument, is it? If you want to persuade people to adopt your rule, you should consider making an affirmative case for it.

What about "one of them is correct, the other is incorrect" isn't an affirmative case?

 

[d4m10n]

What about "one of them is correct, the other is incorrect" isn't an affirmative case?

The part where you never say why anyone should agree with your idea of correct. It's not obvious to everyone why pronouns must always map to gender identity rather than sex.

 

[arthwollipot]

The part where you never say why anyone should agree with your idea of correct.

My name is Andrew. It is not Andy. If you call me Andy, I will ask you to call me Andrew, because Andy is not my name.

My pronouns are he/him. They are not she/her. If you refer to me as she/her, I will ask you to refer to me as he/him, because she/her are not my pronouns.

I see zero difference between these two statements.

 

[angrysoba]

Yes, neopronouns still exist, and there are some people who still use them, but there have been many, many different neopronouns suggested since the 60s and very few of them have caught on in any meaningful way, especially since the gender-neutral singular "they" is already right there.

I know someone who uses "fae". But they also use "they" and don't mind people using either.

I have to wonder if I were teaching a class at a university that didn’t allow mockery of the policy, whether this was an example of that.

Surely this should be clear, that language is not something people can just make up and expect people to fall into line on. Language usually requires some buy-in from others.

As for slang, this is often developed by communities specifically for the purpose of dividing the initiated from the uninitiated - schismogenesis. Neopronouns look like this to me.

I think it is interesting in an anthropological way that some people on the trans-rights side of things want to be included and others seem to me to be deliberately provocative in order to set themselves apart.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

To paraphrase Data, "One of them is my pronoun. The other is not."

Except you have to support why that analogy is even a valid analogy, before making an argument from that analogy, weak as those are anyway.

The quote from Data was about pronouncing his name, and it actually reads, "One is my name. The other is not."

Unless you can support what the attribute is that allows you to transfer that argument from "name" to "pronoun" (e.g., that, just like names, we have a million pronouns used to identify Jack from Jill from Tom from Dick from Harry), that isn't worth as much as you think. In fact it's not worth Jack S... err... Excrement.

 

[arthwollipot]

Except you have to support why that analogy is even a valid analogy, before making an argument from that analogy, weak as those are anyway.

The quote from Data was about pronouncing his name, and it actually reads, "One is my name. The other is not."

Unless you can support what the attribute is that allows you to transfer that argument from "name" to "pronoun" (e.g., that, just like names, we have a million pronouns used to identify Jack from Jill from Tom from Dick from Harry), that isn't worth as much as you think. In fact it's not worth Jack S... err... Excrement.

I see this transfer as self-evident. I choose my name, I choose my pronoun. What's the difference?

 

[Lithrael]

"The feelings of one man, automatically over-rule the feelings of every possible woman."

I'm one of the women who feels most uncomfortable when people are being intentionally misgendered and/or bathroom-gender-checked, and if I dare to bring that up in the thread that must not be named, people say the same damn thing to me (do you think your feelings should over-rule the feelings of other women) when all I want is to count at all. So I have (aheh) feelings about who is silencing and/or over-ruling whom.