Split Thread Pronouns

[Emily's Cat]

You (i.e. @Emily's Cat) had no more basis for thinking @arthwollipot's request had anything to do with gender-identity than anyone reading this thread would have

You mean other than actually, for realsies, unquestionably knowing exactly why arthwollipot has pronouns in their name in the first place?

You might not be aware that gender identity is the underlying issue here, but the rest of us are well aware. arthwollipot is 100% aware that they only added their preferred pronouns to signal solidarity with people who have transgender identities.

For courtesy’s sake, I’ll assume that you’re simply in the dark about this topic. Now that you’re up to speed, I hope it will save you from writing long ascetic posts to “correct” me about a topic on which I’m more knowledgeable than you.

But hey, kudos on taking the opportunity to call me names under the tissue-thin veil of pretended civility. Great job you, demonstrating what a respectful and considerate person you are.

 

[Thermal]

@arthwollipot let me try to explain my position with an analogy, understanding the pitfalls that come with that.

Imagine you’re at a very large wedding with hundreds of people. The host knows you’re an atheist and opposed to organized religion, so they tell you that they’ll be doing communion and prayers during the ceremonies, and asks you to be respectful.

You decide that you’ll be respectful by being still and silent during the religious parts, because you don’t share the host’s beliefs but you also don’t wish to be intentionally offensive.

One of the other attendees (Alex for convenience) notices that you’re staying seated and silent, and asks you to join in communion and saying the prayer. Alex tells you that it’s rude not to, and that if you refuse to take part in the religious observances you’re an ass.

Do you agree with Alex that it’s simple courtesy that costs you nothing? Do you take active part in the religious aspects, despite your disbelief?

This analogy fails on too many basic elements to be illustrative. It's so far off the mark, it borders on deceptive.

You would never, ever be asked to take communion in a church you don't belong to, by anyone. Churches are generally very prohibitive of non-church members doing so. They treat it as a special.privelege you need to work to earn, not encourage randos to join in. Alex would be entirely out in left field to request such a thing.

Another failure is this incessant trying to make common courtesies into religious dogma. The asker is not asking you to believe anything. They are asking you to use a term that doesn't make it seem like you are intentionally trying to publicly humiliate them to others. It doesn't mean you believe what they believe.

In keeping with the religious theme, priests are often called father, and nuns called sister. Even if someone has no respect at all for the Catholic Church, they will most often use the titles because to not do so is making an unnecessary spectacle out of a triviality. "Showing them Catholics who's boss", if you will. Why deliberately get hateful? So everyone knows you are hateful? There's no benefit, just spreading a little more misery around in a world that has its fill already.

Eta: your reply in.post #2 to arthwollipots request concluded with "You aren't special enough for me to upend my entire approach." There is no way to interpret that but as deliberate rudeness.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

This made me laugh. Couldn't help it.

Now that you’re up to speed, I hope it will save you from writing long ascetic posts to “correct” me about a topic on which I’m more knowledgeable than you.

Followed by this:

But hey, kudos on taking the opportunity to call me names under the tissue-thin veil of pretended civility. Great job you, demonstrating what a respectful and considerate person you are.

I have not disputed your claim that others have called you those "names".

Nor did I in any way suggest that the context of this thread called for you to list those specific names while telling us how aggrieved you are about how, according to you yourself, those names may have entered the minds of some who read what you write, or have gotten to know you in some other context.

I'm sure we both deplore the effrontery of others. Why, some of them may even go so far as to think they have as much right to form an opinion of you as you have to form an opinion of yourself!

If you don't watch out, some of them might end up thinking they're allowed to decide for themselves which pronouns they prefer or use.

 

[The Atheist]

You mean other than actually, for realsies, unquestionably knowing exactly why arthwollipot has pronouns in their name in the first place?k

There's only one person here trying to turn this in The Thread That Shall Not Be Named Mk II, and it's not him.

 

[arthwollipot]

You asked that I make a special accommodation for you, and have decided I’m an ass because I declined to treat you differently than I treat everyone else.

No I didn't. I literally asked you to use masculine pronouns for me because I am a man. That's not a special accommodation. That's now normal people treat normal people. What you're doing is performative martyrdom. Vice signalling.

What's wrong with recognising that I am male and use masculine pronouns? Literally 90% of the male population uses masculine pronouns. I'm not asking you for any special treatment, just common courtesy, which you are actively refusing.

And you wonder why I haven't been aware of anything you've said for at least five years. I'm starting to regret my decision to re-engage with you.

You might not be aware that gender identity is the underlying issue here, but the rest of us are well aware. arthwollipot is 100% aware that they only added their preferred pronouns to signal solidarity with people who have transgender identities.

You're a mind-reader now? No, that's not the only reason I did it.