• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Split Thread Pronouns and expectations

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ziggurat said:
Well, that kinda depends. Is his name actually George or is it actually John? This seems to be rather relevant to the question, and the omission of this details is... odd.
Click to expand...

In the UK it's been very common to call a man called Alexander "Boris", a woman called Mary "Liz", a woman called Sue Ellen "Suella", a man called George "Iain" and a man called Gideon "George", so no, it seems not to be that relevant.
 
bruto said:
No doubt if you see yourself as alone in the world and not a part of a larger society and its behavior, and your language as not representing anything about how you otherwise relate to the person, you're right. It doesn't have much effect. If it indicates, as it so often does, a bias that reflects how you interact with others, especially in a way that is transparently confrontational, it might, while not technically injurious, indicate further intent. After all, those in this thread who have objected to the use of preferred pronouns have been pretty explicit in their belief that transsexuals are delusional and mentally ill. So, yes, of course, in the world of the context-free solipsist, if you simply call a person insane, without any further action, it's just nasty. No sticks and stones.

But from the point of view of the person receiving pronouns purposely contrary to their stated preference, you might, despite any disavowal of statistics and protestations of separation from others who do the very same thing, be seen as a member of a group for whom the speech is only one symptom of a variety of attitudes toward their place in society and their ability to lead the lives they seek.

Your question is like asking what harm there is in flying a Confederate flag. You might be able to say it does nothing, but you'd be a tone-deaf fool to say it says nothing. And that, of course, is true even if you contend that what you're saying is right, and it's true even if you are right in saying so. If you try too diligently to contend that your speech is inconsequential, you might end up robbing yourself of an argument for doing it.
Click to expand...
The thinking here seems circular to me. In order to decide the morality of using sex-based pronouns rather than preferred ones, it's necessary to assess harm. What you appear to be doing is assuming the intention is to cause it (to be rude or insulting) or taking it as read that it will cause offence, and from that concluding it is immoral.

I have no doubt you're genuine in making that judgement. Another thing we often miss in moral questions is that a choice is often between different amounts and types of harm and benefit, to a range of others present or absent. For example, risking upsetting one person in the moment may, under proper analysis, prove the right choice when the cost to wider society or general human flourishing is weighed up.

I should also like to defend the observation that "those in this thread who have objected to the use of preferred pronouns have been pretty explicit in their belief that transsexuals are delusional and mentally ill." I, for one, think trans-identifying people are mostly victims of a concerted effort to confuse them, and everyone, about the nature of sex and gender. Being confused in such circumstances is not technically a delusion, but it could certainly be considered mental illness.

The weird thing is that in our time we are becoming more open to discussing our mental health, yet the quote above carries the automatic suggestion of transgressing moral boundaries by suggesting anyone is ever confused about their sex, or that such confusion constitutes mental unwellness.

It is part of the campaign to confuse us that we are meant to interpret gender distress as a physical problem - wrong hormones, wrong body parts - rather than misconception of the relationship between biology and social expectations, and between reality and desire.

It is important to understand all of that, not to mention the unavoidable harm caused by messing about with our bodies, to have any chance of understanding why I resist the compelled speech of preferred pronouns.
 
Last edited:
It seems to me that @acbytesla's argument (and perhaps to an even greater extent @arthwollipot's) is that they have unilaterally declared themselves to be the side of good and virtue, and by implication, anyone who doesn't agree with them is immoral, hateful and should not be permitted to participate in society.

However, anyone can take this stance, relating to anything at all. "I'm right and virtuous, you're evil and hateful" is simply a thought-terminating cliche. It advances the debate not one millimetre.

Repeating "it costs nothing to be polite" when people explain that in fact doing that thing you have labelled "polite" would cost them a great deal is frankly moronic. Refusing to acknowledge that the people you are demanding politeness towards include some of the absolute dregs of humanity (murderers, rapists, child molesters, exhibitionists, voyeurs etc) is dishonest. Ignoring the fact that this is a crusade of open warfare on all women's sex-based rights, of which this "pronouns" malarkey is the covert forward spy mission, is beyond disingenuous.
 
Last edited:
Rolfe said:
It seems to me that @acbytesla's argument (and perhaps to an even greater extent @arthwollipot's) is that they have unilaterally declared themselves to be the side of good and virtue, and by implication, anyone who doesn't agree with them is immoral, hateful and should not be permitted to participate in society.

However, anyone can take this stance, relating to anything at all. "I'm right and virtuous, you're evil and hateful" is simply a thought-terminating cliche. It advances the debate not one millimetre.

Repeating "it costs nothing to be polite" when people explain that in fact doing that thing you have labelled "polite" would cost them a great deal is frankly moronic. Refusing to acknowledge that the people you are demanding politeness towards include some of the absolute dregs of humanity (murderers, rapists, child molesters, exhibitionists, voyeurs etc) is dishonest. Ignoring the fact that this is a crusade of open warfare on all women's sex-based rights, of which this "pronouns" malarkey is the covert forward spy mission, is beyond disingenuous.
Click to expand...
Yes indeed, it has been an absolutely masterful gaslighting campaign. It's been a perfect storm driven by: a few paraphilic men, who declared themselves the world's authority (WPATH), somehow convincing most of the medical authorities to defer to them; use of underhand techniques to insert transgender philosophy into society by stealth; funding of academic posts and NGOs; the desire of gay-rights organisations to have something to campaign about after their successes did them out of a job; economic strain on educational establishments meaning they outsourced chunks of social, sexual and relational education to external agencies (i.e. NGOs like Stonewall, Mermaids, etc.); a general rise in children's screen-time and lack of supervision at home, particularly during Covid, making them susceptible to social contagions of all sorts... and that's no doubt an incomplete list.

Flooding academia with 'critical studies' (and that's superbly Orwellian doublespeak) was a masterstroke, because we were then (and still are) flooded with 'scientific papers' by 'experts in gender studies', that are utter garbage and/or deeply biased.
 
The threats of rape, violence and murder that emanate from the narcissistic wing of the trans rights movement against anyone who expresses an opinion that maybe they've over-reached themselves a little bit are frankly repulsive. And terrifying. But these are the people we're being bullied to be "polite" to, because it "costs nothing". Meanwhile women alarmed at the loss of their sex-based rights and the threat to confused children from these monsters are being told they're hateful and evil.
 
acbytesla said:
You're right they don't. He and she refer to gender not sex.
Click to expand...
No they don't. This is something that activists have decided to try to change by force, by coercively redefining words to mean what they want them to mean. It's humpty dumpty logic.

Sex-based pronouns in English have always referred to sex when used literally.

I swear to FSM that the inability to distinguish between literal and figurative language is going to be the downfall of civilization.
 
acbytesla said:
You don't think your hatred doesn't affect others?
Click to expand...
Why do you think it's hatred to accurately report on objective reality?

Or perhaps I should turn that around: Why do you think it's kind and compassionate to require everyone to participate in a subjective fantasy and collectively lie about their perception of the world around them?
 
acbytesla said:
What difference does it make? I was brought up to treat others as I would like to be treated if I was them. You know, Golden Rule.
Click to expand...
As a female of the human species, I would like to be treated as if my dignity and safety matter to you. I'd like to retain the word that signifies both my sex and my species, as the word mare does for equines. I'd like to clearly and unambiguously know whether the fugitive sex offender that the police are seeking is male or female so I know what to look for. I'd like the assurance of knowing that when I strip down and shower after a hot yoga session, there will not be any penises in my locker room.

People frequently bring up a desire to be nice, to accommodate and include, to demonstrate compassion and empathy, and the golden rule - but they're extraordinarily selective about who is the recipient of their niceness and empathy. And it invariably ends up being extended with no reservations at all to males who profess to have a female gender soul... and such niceness and empathy is denied to those of us who are objectively and somatically female.
 
P.J. Denyer said:
In the UK it's been very common to call a man called Alexander "Boris", a woman called Mary "Liz", a woman called Sue Ellen "Suella", a man called George "Iain" and a man called Gideon "George", so no, it seems not to be that relevant.
Click to expand...
The 'relevance', as I understood it, was referring back to sex, where the facts of the matter are clear. But I agree it's not that relevant, because personal names are a poor analogy, mainly because it's hard to imagine any harm being caused if someone chooses any name they want, so a very high percentage of people would agree that we can choose a personal name without it affecting anything (although in some regions, one has to register one's official names).

In addition, personal names are used directly to the named one, rather than in a third-person context, and while there are strong traditions of sexed names, several are used for both sexes, and language plays a confounding part in deciphering someone's sex from their name.

When it comes to sex, we all have one, it's binary, just one of two types, it was present from early development (even though in rare cases it wasn't clear to casual observation or appeared opposite until around puberty), and is immutable, so there is a fact of the matter.

Furthermore, there are some areas where it is very important for people to discern. In particular, it's important for girls and women to know the sex of another anywhere where their safety or privacy is important to them, because of the significant risk to them from some men (and they can't know which men). But it's also important for all of us, for reasons some of which I've elucidated already, but which come under the simple catch-all: reality is important; pretending is potentially dangerous.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom