Split Thread Pronouns

[Emily's Cat]

The clipboard should have included his pronouns. That is starting to become more and more common in civilised places.

Should the clipboard also include their religion, their favorite sports team, and their preferred beverage?

A doctor should care about the sex of the patient, and what medications they're taking. A doctor shouldn't be expected to adopt a patient's beliefs about their internal affinity for sex-based stereotypes.

 

[Thermal]

Actually, I was never actioned for using "he" in reference to a male ISF member who identified as transgender. Because I never did. I referred to them as male... which is an absolutely true statement, and one that they themself had shared.

Thanks for the correction, I only heard about the explanation well after the fact, and either I recalled wrongly or it was paraphrased wrong.

{Eta: although that just makes it all the more confusing. You frequently refer to members who say they are male as 'male', hell, youve done so directly to me. So you continue doing exactly what you were actioned for, and face no repercussions? But pronoun use is what you rail against, that you weren't actioned for and has never been an issue?}

{Eta2: I only see one suspension listed for you, and that was in 2023. Are you saying you just got a minor ding over whatever happened with you saying 'male' about a member who said they were a male?}

And no, I'm not being "theatrical", I'm being principled. This is important to me. And it's important to a lot of other people too, mostly female humans.

The issue may be principled and very important to you, but the resolution you chose is not. The resolution is to be difficult and confusing. As I said earlier, you can reserve the non-sexed use of pronouns to those vanishingly rare souls (total count on this entire forum: 1, and they are inactive) who request you use one you ideologically take issue with. For the entirety of the rest of the universe, it is pure theatrics. It doesn't apply to them.

I won't intentionally insult a transgender person by referring to them with a sex-based pronoun; but I also won't be bullied into referring to them with a gender-identity-based pronoun because I do not believe in the ideology of gender-identity. I won't be forced to give lip service to a religion. The most reasonable balance I can achieve is to refer to ALL people by neutral pronouns and avoid both "misgendering" and betraying my own principles.

You're not being asked to believe anything, or subscribe to a particular ideology, or convert to a religion, any more than a judge or victim is required to use language like 'Mr' or 'sir' in court when referring to someone they have nothing but contempt for.

Your soul is not compromised by using honorifics. Half the words we use have dicey origins. By singling out this word and usage, you are advertising that your indignation is very very focused on a very very small group of people, not the language at large or forum rules.

 

[Emily's Cat]

It has to do with everything because one of the most common complaints about being asked to use the correct pronoun is that the person will be unable to remember the bespoke pronouns, which you'll notice is exactly the argument that is being used here, and which my statement is a reply to. In fact, you just used it yourself.

It's a spurious argument, because the number of people who use bespoke pronouns is, as I have said a hundred and one times now, vanishingly small, and the chance that you will encounter someone like that in your lifetime is infinitesimal. Not saying it will never happen, because you never know. But it's extremely unlikely, and it's not something that you have to take into account.

It's not generally about memory though. That's part of it, sure, but not the heart.

The heart of it is that what you consider to be "polite" requires that I and those who share my view submit to pretending to something we do not perceive as reality. If you stick Eddie Izzard in front of me, I will see them as a male. I do not perceive Izzard as female, not even a teensy little bit. Everything that Izzard considers "female" about themself exists solely in their own mind, and I don't have ESP.

I can, however, see and observe the reality that Izzard is an adult male of the human species.

Your demand that everyone adopt gender-identity based pronouns is the demand that we ignore the evidence of our senses and substitute someone's wishes in their place.

Not only does this impede clear communication, it can result in dangerous misunderstandings.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I do not recognise the artificial division between sex and gender. It's absolutely a preference, if what you prefer is to be wrong.

Are you claiming that sex and gender-identity are synonymous, that they are the same things?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Off-topic.

It's not off topic, it's the entire basis of the topic. We are only discussing pronouns because of the topic. Without that topic as the absolute cornerstone of the disagreement, there wouldn't be a question about pronouns in the first place.

Pronouns are the thin wedge by which activists try to force society to accept a fundamental untruth.

 

[Thermal]

Lotta talk about randos who don't matter, here. I'd like to opine that while you may all be randos that I wouldn't recognize on the street, you're all important to me and I ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ care about what you say, even in disagreement. Especially in disagreement. That's how we hear other views, by engaging directly with them. Love all you random ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Pronouns are the thin wedge by which activists try to force society to accept a fundamental untruth.

"I can't call a man 'him' because then transgenderism will destroy society!"

Monomania

 

[Thermal]

Should the clipboard also include their religion, their favorite sports team, and their preferred beverage?

A doctor is not typically addressing someone as Seahawks Fan, or Coke Drinker. The gender marker is to tip the doc off on how this person fundamentally sees themselves, and to use language with respect to that.

A doctor should care about the sex of the patient, and what medications they're taking.

They do.

A doctor shouldn't be expected to adopt a patient's beliefs about their internal affinity for sex-based stereotypes.

They don't.

 

[Thermal]

Are you opining that Arthwollipot is a troll? Arthwollipot is the one who kicked this off, demanding that I abandon my principles and my practice in order to assuage Arthwollipot's feelings. I declined. We only have this thread because Arthwollipot demanded it be so.

Untrue. Arthwollipot, asked, politely:

Please use my correct pronouns, which are helpfully offered on the left.

How can you suggest that HE is asking you to "abandon your principles to assuage HIS feelings" when HE is using pronouns EXACTLY as your principles dictate?

 

[Emily's Cat]

The topic is pronouns. Pronouns are not chosen, they just are. They do not rest on anything other than what is right and what is wrong. If you want to argue about anything else, take it to the other thread.

Are pronouns "right" if they're used in alignment with sex?

That's the issue. For centuries, pronouns in english as well as romance languages (and probably most others) have been based on the sex of the subject. Very recently, there's been a push by activists to change the entire meaning of pronouns to reflect subjective gender identity - especially when that gender identity is in conflict with sex.

Your view appears to be one of two positions, and possibly a combination:
1) You believe that pronouns ought to be used in alignment with gender identity and NOT in alignment with sex
2) You believe that pronouns are something each individual gets to select for themselves and obligate other people to use in the way they wish them to be used.

At the end of the day, your perspective of right and wrong in the context appears to be based exclusively on your framework for belief. I don't accept your beliefs, and as a result I don't accept your opinion of what is right and wrong with respect to pronoun usage.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I thought we were specifically talking about this forum.

I think we're using this forum as the proving ground for the validity of the arguments themselves. The topic itself extends beyond just ISF.

For example, I believe that arthwollipot would be just as offended were they to learn that any of us refer to arthwollipot as "she" outside of ISF, and would feel justified in bringing it up here. But I could be wrong in my inference, I suppose.

 

[Emily's Cat]

and yet he is refusing to call a man he or him.

Does it offend you that I only use sex-neutral pronouns?

We say congressperson (or congresscritter, depending on your views of congress). We say police officer, firefighter, sales associate, flight attendant. We've put a lot of effort into removing sex from a ton of our language. Would you also support removing sex from pronouns?

That's what singular they accomplishes... even though it comes with a lot of additional work to ensure clarity.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I am a he. Some have wondered if I am a she because I use a creature that is referred to as either a male or female as my username and avatar.

I am happy to use others preferred pronouns, unless it is a person with a penis prancing round a female changing room claiming to be a woman, in which case I will refer to that person as he, whether he likes it or not.

Hah! Thank you! I knew that one of the posters I interact with occasionally was actually male, although most assume female. I just could never remember if it was you or Vixen.

FYI, the assumption is probably driven by naming conventions. With some exceptions here and there, diminutives that end in "ie" are usually female. It's not a hard and fast rule, by any means, but for example we would tend to abbreviate male names to end in a "y", but female names could end in any combination of "y", "i", or "ie".

Example:
Danielle (a female name) has pretty even odds of being abbreviated to Dani, Dannie, or Danny.
Daniel (a male name) would be very uncommon to abbreviate to anything other than Danny.

ETA: I know that Amy Strange is male, it's been a topic of discussion that was interesting enough it stuck in my brain.

 

[Emily's Cat]

No. I'm just saying one also can't apply that in the opposite direction. You can't extrapolate that Japan is infantilising adult women in anime, based on western talking points, when the whole language and culture don't work that way. Find some better example than anime, is all I'm saying.

FWIW, my contention with anime has nothing to do with the canonical ages of the characters. I don't care if they call a middle-school female a "girl". My contention is with the two-part sexualization of children. Nominally adult anime characters tend to be drawn with highly childlike facial features, often baby-to-toddler features: over large eyes located low on the face, very tiny pursed lips, teensy button nose, large round cheeks, etc. Additionally, there's a tendency to place characters that are defined as children into sexualized clothing and situations.

My argument was never about language when it comes to anime. Also, anime is by no means the only illustrative media in which adult females are infantilized and female children are sexualized, it just happens to be one of the most prolific.

 

[Emily's Cat]

<pedant>Case in point</pedant>


ETA: I learned a new word today: eggcorn. I think the above qualifies.

Tow the line, rain it in, etc.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

For example, I believe that arthwollipot would be just as offended were they to learn that any of us refer to arthwollipot as "she" outside of ISF, and would feel justified in bringing it up here. But I could be wrong in my inference, I suppose.

I've been misgendered and misnamed IRL at work in a group email. Think something like Hana instead of Hans. (Not the exact name, for privacy reasons.) I just had a jolly good laugh and walked to the guy's desk and asked, "Do I actually look like a woman to you?" And that was the end of it. Like, flip me if I can be bothered to walk a few more yards to HR, so the lady there can have a laugh too.

 

[theprestige]

Ten years ago, I used to chuckle at the folks that made a point of being offended at being "misgendered" online.

That was mostly about the whole issue of username ambiguity and lack of any visual cues at all. You just form a vague mental image of the person, and assign a corresponding pronoun to that image. Then you use the pronoun in conversation, and sometimes it's a mistake. Turns out our very own Amy Strange identifies as a dude in real life, for example.

Anyway, ten years ago, I'd chuckle. Because, I thought, who cares? Why does it matter? So what if someone called you a she when you're really a he? There's nothing wrong with being a she. Nothing changes about the quality of your opinions and arguments, if you're mistaken for a she online. Your personality still is what it is. Your persona still is what it is. The effect you've had on your online acquaintances, their opinions of you as a person, still are exactly as they have been.

Online, I thought, was a blessed realm where ideas mattered, gender didn't, and being misgendered mattered so much less than gender that it wasn't even worth addressing.

Boy was I wrong.

---

What gets me now is that arth is super concerned that we "correctly" envision him as possessing some sort of fundamental, objectively true identity. To affirm his identity not only to his face but also behind his back is just basic acceptance of reality.

Unfortunately, it's not a reality he can describe or define. He just says it's true. He says he's a "he" because that's the only thing he could possibly be. He says perception doesn't even enter into it. You look, you see the truth, you speak the truth. Good luck defining that truth, though. Not even arth can do that. All he can do is insist that it is an offense not just against good manners, but against reality itself, to misrepresent him as a "she". Whatever a "she" is.

arth, what's a "she"? Why is it anathema to you to be represented in the minds of others as a "she"? Is a "she" inferior in some way to the "he" you identify as? Do you find the concept of "she" disgusting in some way? Is it dishonorable to you, to acquiesce to being seen as a "she" by others? What's the problem? More importantly: On what agreed-upon fundamental principles of reality does this problem rest? What is it about the real world that makes thinking of you as a "she" so wrong?

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

My argument was never about language when it comes to anime. Also, anime is by no means the only illustrative media in which adult females are infantilized and female children are sexualized, it just happens to be one of the most prolific.

You still mentioned infantilisation and linked to feminist articles about infantilising language about women. Which, in all fairness, is fair for the English speaking world. It just misses the mark by a nautical mile when it comes to Japanese. Or anime graphics style for that matter. With VERY few exceptions, like the mutant teacher in a certain series, ages are represented by height. The same woman in a series is literally shown to be a head higher as a 29 year old in the end episode, than she was as a 17 year old schoolgirl. And, as you know first hand, virtually no real human grows in height at that point.

But I suppose you could go resurrect our old anime thread if you want to continue our good old friendly sparring. I'm always up for a jolly good debate.

 

[Emily's Cat]

As far as I can tell the de facto forum rules for pronoun misgendering follow a very common compromise: "You're not required to affirm it. You're not permitted to contradict it."

"It" in this case stands for something that a minority of people care intensely about but disagree on, while most are close to indifferent. An example I grew up with is reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in U.S. public schools, daily at the start of every day. There's never been unanimity among school officials, students, or their parents about this practice. I was in elementary school in a suburb where it might as well have been the mid 1950s as far as social issues were concerned (pizza was still exotic foreign food) but even so, there were some individuals and families with apparently very strong religious or political objections to reciting the pledge, and they were allowed to remain silent. There were also students with creative or rebellious or just ridiculously bored inclinations, who got the bright idea of reciting out loud some opposite-day or parody version. That transgression was punished without quarter. What was the difference? The difference between not-affirming and contradicting. The only way for extreme pro-pledge and anti-pledge viewpoints to coexist is to permit non-affirmation but forbid contradiction. Meanwhile, the rest of us just mumbled the pledge as always, not even processing the individual words.

I always just stopped speaking for the "under god" part. I'm fine with the rest of it, and the sentiment stands.

Third person singular usage of "they" and "them" as pronouns neither affirms nor contradicts a gender identity. They do not express a gender (which is why people with "non-gendered" and "non-binary" gender identities can use them and request their use).

As far as I can tell, the forum rules give arthwollipot the right not to have his gender identity contradicted by other members' posts. That's not the same right as commanding the use of any specific pronouns or other specific phrasings. For instance, I doubt it would occur to him to object to my posting something like "give the guy a break" regarding something stupid someone else says about him, even though "the guy" is blatantly not any of the words "he," "him," "his," "himself," or his forum name.

Emily's Cat objects to the misgendering rule for reasons they've explained (regarding people they believe claim a gender identity without having earned that identity via lived experience). Not being allowed (under protest) to directly contradict anyone's stated gender identity, they refuse to affirm any of them either, for instance by refraining from the use of gendered pronouns. It is, and should be, within their rights to refuse to affirm a male (or any) gender identity by using gender-nonspecific pronouns and to refuse to use gender-specific pronouns even if demanded.

It's not even that much - there is no lived experience that a male can have which will make them female; there is no lived experience that a female can have that will make them male. No female will ever experience a random teenage erection in the middle of class, nor will they experience nocturnal emissions, nor will they experience epididymal hypertension. Similarly, no male will ever experience unexpectedly starting a menstrual cycle in the middle of class, nor will they experience pregnancy, nor will they experience menopause.

I don't necessarily wish to contradict anyone's gender identity, just as I wouldn't want to contradict their belief in allah or amaterasu or horus. They can believe whatever they wish to believe, and I don't feel that there's anything to gain from contradicting their beliefs. I simply won't affirm them.

I view pronouns as being sex-based. Because my view comes into conflict with the view of those who believe in gender identity, I simply sidestep it. Your explanation is much clearer and more concise than mine: "You're not required to affirm it. You're not permitted to contradict it."

 

[Emily's Cat]

I've been misgendered and misnamed IRL at work in a group email. Think something like Hana instead of Hans. (Not the exact name, for privacy reasons.) I just had a jolly good laugh and walked to the guy's desk and asked, "Do I actually look like a woman to you?" And that was the end of it. Like, flip me if I can be bothered to walk a few more yards to HR, so the lady there can have a laugh too.

I work with a large number of off-shored technicians who are substantially Indian and African. Most of them I never see a face to go with a name. I just don't try to guess what sex they are anymore, and I routinely use neutral pronouns in communications. Nobody has yet complained.