Split Thread Pronouns

[Emily's Cat]

And then the person says "I'm a 'he' " and the writer says "I don't believe you!" because they have a morbid terror of Cylons infiltrating the sexes or something. That's not been a thing for centuries.

Again, this is you choosing to be rude and uncivil.

At no point have I said I don't believe wolli's sex to be male. On the other hand, I don't believe that gender identity is a real, concrete, objective thing - no more so than souls.

Neutral pronouns are perfectly serviceable if used with care, and an effort is made to disambiguate where needed to ensure clarity.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I didn't. In fact, I and others have been saying the polar opposite, that you tell us what your gender identity is.

I've told you - more than once - that I don't have a gender identity. You've disagreed, and insisted that you know better than me what my internal soul is like.

But it doesn't matter, does it? You're so drowning in your own rhetoric that you can neither hear nor understand what others are saying.

I understand it very well. I merely disagree with your belief system, and I don't feel obligated to conform to your rituals.

You just keep regurgitating canned slogans, not even bothering to think about whether they apply.

What "canned slogans" have I repeated? And have you evaluated other posters to see how much of what they say is simply regurgitated canned slogans?

 

[Emily's Cat]

I'm a little entranced by this idea that if you don't subscribe to gender-benderism, then you don't have a gender identification. You do. It's your sex.

You could argue that those whose gender ID *doesn't* match their sex are out in left field, but that doesn't change that your gender ID is real. You have one, but consider it inarguably tied to your sex.

The only other option is to say the word and concept of gender, in any way, doesn't exist. That would be a fairly dense proposition.

Again, you seem to feel that you're in a position of authority whereby you can tell me what my gendered-soul is, even though I tell you I don't have one.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Sure:

(It) describes and defines (gender, the subject matter) about as clear as you can get (doesn't it)?

Some words were ommited in observation of National Brevity Century.

For consideration... you should be aware that you're conflating gender with gender identity.

I don't have a gender identity. Gender is something imposed upon me by society as a result of my sex, and I reject it completely. Gender is a set of regressive stereotypes.

 

[Emily's Cat]

To be fair, you are (allegedly) female. You made it plenty clear that you identify as female. You always take the side of women's (as in, adult female humans.) Feminist, even. (Which I actually sympathise with, believe it or not.) You are not self identifying as non-binary, nor one of the dozen shades of gender-fluid, but as female. Consistently ever since 2013, some 13 years ago. Even without my self-identifying as a bastard, why in Lucifer Morningstar's good name would I call you anything else than a "she"? We're moving waaay out of the realm of misgendering someone who chose the 19th gender on their iPhone, and back into the realm of just calling a biological female a female. WTH is wrong with that?

I am objectively, observably, provably female. I don't "identify as" female. There's nothing wrong with you or anyone else referring to me as "she". I don't even consider it rude.

But I still don't have a gender identity.

I mean, I still have to maintain a biggest bastard reputation (clue is in the name,) so I can't (admit to) give a flip about you or your preferred pronouns, but this time I'm genuinely curious. When does it become wrong to call a self-admitted female a female?

That's the thing - I don't think it's wrong. I have no issues with anyone using sex-based pronouns. I have an issue with me being expected to use gender-identity-based pronouns. And because both desires cannot be simultaneously satisfied, I've elected neutral pronouns as the least harmful approach.

 

[Emily's Cat]

No it isn't. Not unless you hold to the ridiculous position that you hold some sort of claim over someone else's pronoun.

I think it's a ridiculous position to think that anyone holds authority over how other people refer to them in the first place. Nobody owns someone else's use of common language.

It's not your pronoun. It's the application of common language when referring to you. You don't own pronouns, they aren't yours.

Because they have asked you to.

Respectfully... so the ◊◊◊◊ what? Yes, I made a request. But it was only that - a request. It has as much power as me asking a fast food joint for a fabric napkin instead of a paper one. If they happen to have one available and feel like giving it to me, then cool. If they say no, oh well.

When I'm asking other people to alter their behavior in order to increase my happiness... I don't think it's unreasonable for some (maybe even all) of those people to decline my request. It's not even rude if they choose not to do what I want them to do - I'm not their boss.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I'd doesn't. It's the pronoun 'she' specifically. Because since *checks notes* she did NOT have an issue with forum management over pronouns, it's important to de-sex pronouns. The issue with management was *checks notes again, squinting* that EC used the term 'male' in reference to a self-described male, so naturally we will continue to use 'male' in discussion.

See how easy it is?

Staff made it clear that we are not allowed to contradict someone's claimed gender identity. So I don't.

I myself had not done so prior to that ruling, but some others had. I have chosen to avoid the mess altogether, and ensure that I never run afoul of it.

 

[Emily's Cat]

So if I'm a bastard, which is fair, I even put it in my name

Okay... but it's NOT in your name. You realize that, don't you?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Not really, as I do not believe that I have been using that fallacy. I have been making my case with complete honesty. But okay.

I believe you've been honest. I don't believe you've made a case.

You've provided no argument in support of using gender-identity based pronouns, other than that some people like them. You've applied only an appeal to emotion.

I've provided my argument, and I've been honest as well. For your convenience, I'll summarize my argument for you:

• Third-person pronouns are used when speaking of other people, not when speaking to them. The person being spoken of has no authority or power to dictate what third-person pronouns are used by others.
• Most pronoun usage is based on the perception of the speaker - whether we perceive the subject to be male or female. Trying to alter the use of language to use gender-identity-based pronouns rather than sex-based pronouns is coercive. Furthermore, it's coercive in service to an ideology that I do not accept.
• Pronouns provide information about the subject. In common usage, pronouns inform listeners whether the subject is male or female. In most cases that doesn't actually matter, and a neutral singular they is sufficient. Because most of the time, whether the subject is male or female is irrelevant.
• Using gender-identity based pronouns results in misunderstandings. The push for people to "be nice" and allow individuals to optionally request cross-sex pronouns to reflect how they think about their inner spirit can and does mislead everyone else. If a headline says "Woman on the run for violent attack, she has dark hair and she was last seen on the corner of 9th and Main", it's going to be a problem with the person in question is actually male. Nobody will call in when they see the suspect, because they've been provided misleading information.
• Pronouns provide subconscious sorting information. When a person is referred to as "she", then listeners will assume by default that "she" belongs on the female sports team, and in female intimate spaces, and in female prisons. By means of this misinformation, the public has been unwittingly supporting males being granted access to female spaces and services - they've been incorrectly given the impression that these males are females.

You may not like my arguments, but none of them are fallacious.

Furthermore, my use of neutral pronouns is based on a desire to do the least harm, and to avoid intentional insult as much as possible.

• If I use only sex-based pronouns, then I will end up contradicting the claimed gender identity of some forum members. I don't wish to do so, partly because it's against the rules, but largely because I make a habit of avoiding discourtesy whenever I can.
• If I use gender-identity-based pronouns, then I view it as a violation of my principles. I see it as dishonesty on my part. I find it offensive in the same way I would find it offensive if a coworker required that I say the lord's prayer before dinner.
• The only solution for me that balances the desire to not intentionally cause insult and my own integrity is to use neutral pronouns.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Perhaps not in this thread (and this may be complicated by this being a split thread)...

... but if you do a search for posts made by Emily's Cat and the term "gender neutral" you will find many posts where they make it quite clear, that, while their sex is female, they do not subscribe to gender roles, or feel that they personally have a gender, and prefer to always be referred to in gender neutral terms.

It's a preference, but it's not a dictate. It will please me if people choose to use neutral pronouns in reference to me, but I won't complain if anyone chooses not to. I don't believe I'm important enough or powerful enough to expect other random internet people to remember my special requests and take on an extra burden for my convenience.

There appear to have also been requests for their preferred they/them/their pronouns to be added to their displayed avatar, and this has not been allowed, for reasons unknown.

I have not requested that they be added to my avatar. I won't do so, as it would be interpreted by most people to be an assertion of a gender identity that I do not have.

 

[Emily's Cat]

By the way, in terms of she/he/her/him stuff...

Am I the only one who remembers frequent admonishments for referring to a 'present' person in a conversation by use of 'third party personal pronouns' ie. 'she' or 'he'?

Were members not taught: "SHE is the cat's mother." When they made the mistake of referring to a person, who is present, as 'she' ?

In terms of forum conversations, we are all present, all the time.

I'm aware of it. It's just virtually impossible on a forum like this. At some point we will refer to other people using third-party pronouns. It's impolite to talk about others while they're present... but we reference other people who aren't involved in the discussion on a regular basis.

I tend to think of it like being at a large gathering. If you're standing there with Alex and Pat having a conversation, it's generally considered impolite to refer to either of them with a third-person pronoun. But if the subject of your discussion is Blake, who is on the other side of the room, then a third-person pronoun is a reasonable and accepted use.

This forum is a whole lot more like a large gathering, and it's reasonable and acceptable to refer to people who aren't directly involved in the exchange without having to write their names over and over and over again.

+++++++++++++++++++++++

We also frequently discuss people who are not members. We talk about defendants in trials, celebrities, politicians, etc. on a regular basis. Some members of this forum expect everyone to adopt gender-identity-based pronouns for those external entities, even though they aren't present.

 

[Emily's Cat]

It isn't, since your post was just a three line paragraph, and didn't (way I've read it,) conflict with what I was quoting. And I wasn't talking about what she's said or done IRL. You know, since I'm not just not talking to her directly, but I'm not even on the same CONTINENT. But I admit to being a bastard and not caring about her pronouns either way, RL or online. I practice exactly what I preach. Other people use double standards, and still think they're some kind of shining example of being "progressive."

I prefer an honest ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ to a dishonest ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I do because da Cat never once asked me to use anything different. And she has said more than once in a moment of candor that she doesn't believe in it herself, but is just trying to make a point.

This isn't actually true. It's not trying to make a point. It's being consistent.

I doubt you've noticed, but I don't believe I've ever been the one to bring it up. I simply use neutral 3rd person pronouns across the board. I do it consistently here at ISF, and have for over 5 years. The only time I mention my preference for usage on ISF is when someone else inquires as to why I'm referring to someone they know to be male as "they". Then they get a short explanation that includes my complete rejection of gender identity as a useful concept.

I've never once complained when people refer to me as "she" - and I never will. A request to accommodate my preferences isn't binding, and I bear no ill will toward those who choose to use sex-based pronouns exclusively. Heck, I haven't even reported those few posters who've made a point of referring to me as "he" or "it" in a clear attempt to get a rise out of me.

Thats the thing- she says she doesnt really believe it and doesn't use it IRL, and that's what is sticking for me. There's nothing Holier Than Thou about recognizing the truth that she herself tells you and having that stick with you

Actually, this is also untrue. Outside of ISF, I use sex-based pronouns. At no point do I use gender-identity-based pronouns. My use of neutral pronouns here is a concession I'm willing to make in order to avoid insult and infraction.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

I am objectively, observably, provably female. I don't "identify as" female. There's nothing wrong with you or anyone else referring to me as "she". I don't even consider it rude.

But I still don't have a gender identity.

Funnily enough neither do I, but I went into that over and over again already.

That's the thing - I don't think it's wrong. I have no issues with anyone using sex-based pronouns.

Well, then it sounds like you have no problem with my using them about you. Glad we reached an understanding.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Okay... but it's NOT in your name. You realize that, don't you?

"Spurius" in Latin literally means "bastard." In the literal sense. It was a common enough name for people born out of wedlock^*. (As was for example Postumius for people born after their father passed away. It happened lots with all the wars.) Incidentally, they even historically had a consul named Spurius Maximus leading the Republic for a year. It meant "Bastard The Great" in more medieval ways to call someone. Or more like literally "the greatest bastard" in period vernacular, since in Latin the adjective could go on either side of the noun.

So, yes, I think my username qualifies as literally having "bastard" in the name

Also, told you not to get me started on history. This is me trying to be as brief as I can possibly can. In other forums you'd get two pages


^* Imagine having a name like Bastard Johnson these days. Given to you by your mom

 

[Emily's Cat]

If arthwollipot or anyone else says "NO, I refuse to call you what you want, you are what I say you are", they are absolutely the only flaming arseholes at the table. But let's stop kidding ourselves- there's only one small group around here that says "NO, ◊◊◊◊ OFF" loud and proud. And arthwollipot ain't a member.

Umm... I get told by people here that I am what they say I am on a regular basis. I've been told I'm a republican (I'm not), a conservative (I don't think of myself as such), a nazi (not even a little bit), a bigot (nope again), a fascist (also not true), and many many more over the years. I've been told that I support genocide.

When I tell people what I am, many people here feel quite free to disregard my assessment of myself and to substitute what they think of me instead.

In general, this is incredibly common. It's not always rude, but we generally refer to other people based on how we perceive them, not on how they perceive themselves. arthwollipot perceives me as being rude because I use neutral pronouns. I don't perceive myself as being rude, I perceive myself as being reasonably accommodating, consistent, and fair. No amount of me telling arthwollipot this requires that they change their practice.
So far as I'm aware, there is only one group of people for whom everyone else is expected to forego our own perceptions and to substitute the subject's perception of themselves instead.

 

[Emily's Cat]

This thread (refresh your memory on the first couple posts) is about EC saying big and bold "◊◊◊◊ off, you are what I say you are".

At no point have I done this. This appears to be a malicious misrepresentation of what I have actually said.

 

[Emily's Cat]

A pronoun replaces a name in grammar. "I like John" becomes "I like him". It follows all of the grammatical rules that the name does. I have the right to tell you what my name is, so by those same rules I also have the right to tell you what my pronoun is, because my pronoun is literally standing in as a substitute for my name. It serves the role of the name in a sentence in every way.

I ask you to call me Andrew and not Andy because, by Data's Rule, Andy is not my name. You substitute a pronoun for my name, which grammar permits you to do, and I ask you to call me he/him and not she/her because she/her is not my pronoun.

You can request that I call you Andrew rather then Andy when you aren't around. But you shouldn't expect me to do so. I suspect what you call me in private is a fair bit more colorful than what you call me on ISF

If I want to call you Andy, or Drew, or That Numpty, I have the freedom to do so. You might consider it rude, and in many cases I would agree with you. But I still have the right to call you whatever the hell I damned well please.

When you're talking about pronouns, you're trying to dictate what other people are allowed to use in reference to you when you aren't there. You're attempting to impose your beliefs on someone else's private behavior.

 

[Emily's Cat]

"Spurius" in Latin literally means "bastard." In the literal sense. It was a common enough name for people born out of wedlock^*. (As was for example Postumius for people born after their father passed away. It happened lots with all the wars.) Incidentally, they even historically had a consul named Spurius Maximus leading the Republic for a year. It meant "Bastard The Great" in more medieval ways to call someone. Or more like literally "the greatest bastard" in period vernacular, since in Latin the adjective could go on either side of the noun.

So, yes, I think my username qualifies as literally having "bastard" in the name

Also, told you not to get me started on history. This is me trying to be as brief as I can possibly can. In other forums you'd get two pages


^* Imagine having a name like Bastard Johnson these days. Given to you by your mom

Fun to learn. I'm only familiar with it meaning faulty reasoning.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Fun to learn. I'm only familiar with it meaning faulty reasoning.

That is "spurious", which, yes, is a derivative of "spurius". You probably see why it's based on "bastard".