-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Split Thread Pronouns
- Thread starter arthwollipot
- Start date
W.D.Clinger
Philosopher
If I wanted to be pedantic (and when do I not?), I'd say that statistic suggests 94% of the US population use pronouns that match their birth-assigned sex.
Which would mean at least 88% of the US male population use pronouns that match their birth-assigned sex, because we have to consider the rather remote possibility that every single female uses pronouns that match her (!) birth-assigned sex.
And that says next to nothing about the worldwide male population.
(Beyond my (increasingly minority) belief that "they" and "them" are plural, I don't have a cock in this cockfight. But I do think it's more interesting to consider credible estimates than to watch emotional cockfights.)
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
Summary of this thread from my perspective:
A: I want you to do x.
E: No, I don’t do x for anyone.
A: But I want you to do x for me. It’s rude if you don’t.
E: It’s not rude, it’s neutral. And like I said, I don’t do x for anyone. There’s no reason I should make an exception for you.
A: I told you it’s rude. You should change your ways and do x for me. It’s the right thing to do. (Aside… I don’t even actually care if E does x, I just want to make a point)
E: Why do you think it’s the right thing? If I do x for you, but not others, then I’m being inconsistent with my principles and beliefs. Here are the reasons I don’t do x for anyone: (lists reasons).
A: I told you it’s rude, and you’re an ass if you don’t do x for me. It’s just a polite request, why won’t you do x for me when I ask you to?
E: That doesn’t sound like a polite request, it sounds like a demand under threat of social condemnation.
A: It’s not a demand. I just want you to change your ways so that I’ll be happier. It’s the right thing to do.
E: I disagree, and I don’t see any good argument for why your particular view on morality is one I should adopt. I don’t adopt the moral beliefs of other people on request, no matter how strongly they believe they’re righteous. Why do you think you’re important enough for me to make an exception to my principles?
A: Because I told you I’m right and I asked you to.
E: Would you set aside your deeply held principles at my request?
A: No, because you’re wrong and I’m right. I want you to do x, I asked you to do x. If you don’t do x you’re rude and an ass.
E: That’s not a compelling argument. I take a neutral approach that never contradicts anyone’s belief on this topic. I’m not going to change that just because you want me to, it’s something I deeply believe in and am committed to. I’ve been doing this consistently for a very long time.
A: But I told you it’s rude! I want you to do x for me!
E: No.
A: [rant, expletives, insults]
E: You’re being uncivil, disrespectful, and rude.
A: [flounces]
A: I want you to do x.
E: No, I don’t do x for anyone.
A: But I want you to do x for me. It’s rude if you don’t.
E: It’s not rude, it’s neutral. And like I said, I don’t do x for anyone. There’s no reason I should make an exception for you.
A: I told you it’s rude. You should change your ways and do x for me. It’s the right thing to do. (Aside… I don’t even actually care if E does x, I just want to make a point)
E: Why do you think it’s the right thing? If I do x for you, but not others, then I’m being inconsistent with my principles and beliefs. Here are the reasons I don’t do x for anyone: (lists reasons).
A: I told you it’s rude, and you’re an ass if you don’t do x for me. It’s just a polite request, why won’t you do x for me when I ask you to?
E: That doesn’t sound like a polite request, it sounds like a demand under threat of social condemnation.
A: It’s not a demand. I just want you to change your ways so that I’ll be happier. It’s the right thing to do.
E: I disagree, and I don’t see any good argument for why your particular view on morality is one I should adopt. I don’t adopt the moral beliefs of other people on request, no matter how strongly they believe they’re righteous. Why do you think you’re important enough for me to make an exception to my principles?
A: Because I told you I’m right and I asked you to.
E: Would you set aside your deeply held principles at my request?
A: No, because you’re wrong and I’m right. I want you to do x, I asked you to do x. If you don’t do x you’re rude and an ass.
E: That’s not a compelling argument. I take a neutral approach that never contradicts anyone’s belief on this topic. I’m not going to change that just because you want me to, it’s something I deeply believe in and am committed to. I’ve been doing this consistently for a very long time.
A: But I told you it’s rude! I want you to do x for me!
E: No.
A: [rant, expletives, insults]
E: You’re being uncivil, disrespectful, and rude.
A: [flounces]
Last edited:
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
In what way? What moral argument supports your assertion other than just raw belief?
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
arthwollipot
Limerick Purist Pronouns: He/Him
Singular "they" to refer to a specified individual dates back centuries.
Ron Obvious
Graduate Poster
Sex is not "assigned at birth".
novaphile
Quester of Doglets
Yep, anyone that says that sex is 'assigned' at birth, is revealing that they've joined one side of the debate.
arthwollipot
Limerick Purist Pronouns: He/Him
Off-topic.
Thermal
August Member
In fairness, it is, but it has nothing to do with the gender-benderism that everyone assumes it does.
They assign sex at birth because, like, a midwife ain't done no chromosomal testing. The midwife observes what the newborn appears to be packing, but they could be physically just wrong, and you don't want mistakes made there. So 'assigned' is really a legal buffer, but yeah, it's gotten co-opted to represent more ideological ends.
Thermal
August Member
Summary of how others see it:
A: please use the most normal male
pronouns in the English speaking world when referring to me, a male.
E: Get bent. You're not special.
A: You mean you do this all the time?
E: Of course not. It's just an act I put on for this forum only. What kind of weirdo would I be if I did this in real life?
A: ...
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
How about you take that up with the people who introduced it and report them, rather than trying to silence anyone who objects to anti-reality ideological language?
This is a persistent pattern of behavior in this debate. One side makes slogan-driven assertions based solely on faith and inserts ideologically driven language into a discussion, often off-topic. When the other side responds by pointing out that it’s inaccurate, misleading, or unsupported… they get reported or objected to.
The net effect is that one side tries to define what language is allowed, and to silence and gag any opposition. It gives a false impression of consensus where none actually exists.
This is amplified by the fact that the vast majority of people on the opposing side *actually* value free speech and diversity of opinion, and interact with civility. Some people mistake loud voices for rightness, and take silence as agreements because they’ve abandoned the courtesy and respect expected in a civilized society.
W.D.Clinger
Philosopher
The source I cited used the phrase "birth-assigned sex", and I quoted that source accurately.
You are perfectly free to paraphrase the source I cited however you like.
I suspect, however, that the source I cited was using that phrase to refer to a description of the sex that was visually apparent at birth, and was recorded on a birth certificate.
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
They might be referring to that, but it’s materially and intentionally misleading language that gives the false impression that sex is uncertain and based on nothing more than casual assumptions rather than an innate, permanent difference within anisogamous species.
Rolfe
Adult human female
In very particular circumstances, which native speakers of English understand. Stop trying to subvert the language to suit your ideological position.
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
You're against use of "they" in place of "he" or "she"? On the basis that using it is subverting the language to suit an ideological position?
Rolfe
Adult human female
Yes.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
The phrase is an archaic one that is functionally synonymous with "[biological] sex observed at birth". A perfectly fine and normal thing.
Recently, some dickheads have decided that what society really needs right now is to equivocate the concept of biological sex as much as possible, for bizarre sociopolitical reasons we won't (can't, really) go into here. You know where to find that discussion if you think you have a coherent argument to make on that point.
Anyway, these dickheads have been working very hard to convince us that "sex assigned at birth" means that biological sex is not a scientific reality, that it is ambiguous and not objectively observable, and that when a physician "assigns" sex to a newborn he's just hanging a temporary label on a potential social construct that may or may not apply to the newborn as they mature.
This is, of course, obviously toxic and antisocial nonsense. Of course the mutable social construct exists, but the reality of biological sex at birth (and forever after) is still an objective, observable fact.
Which brings us back to pronouns. When I used a sexed third-person pronoun to refer to someone, I am referring to him based on my observation of his biological sex. His complaint, then, about having a preferred pronoun, amounts to a demand that I pretend to ignore his observable sex, and instead refer to him according to his current headcanon about the social construct he embodies. Personally, I prefer to stick to the much more useful, perfectly cromulent, and time-tested practice of third person pronouns referring to observed sex rather than fiat headcanon. EC, on the other hand, prefers to sidestep the entire mess by using gender-neutral pronouns. I think that's also a valid strategy.
What I don't think is a valid strategy is arthwollipot's insistence that he cannot be properly referred to in gender-neutral terms. That he must be referred to as a "he". Not because he's biologically male, no. That would undermine the entire toxic, antisocial program to equivocate biological sex as much as possible. No, he has to be referred to as "he" because of some undefinable, un-quantifiable, and frankly irrelevant social construct. The only thing that happens when EC refers to arth as "they/them" instead of "he/him" is that somewhere a gender essentialist doesn't get their wings.
Last edited:
Thermal
August Member
Ok, your take gets brought up a lot, which begs the question:
What are we using pronouns for? To identify a person, yes? So if the person wants to be referred to by a particular normal.pronoun (not neopronoun), doesn't it actually introduce confusion to use your own assigned one? What is the purpose other than to generate a misunderstanding about who is being referred to? It would seem to be "I'm taking a stand for what I believe in". Is there any point to that posturing when we are just referring to someone?
Calling a transwoman a 'she' does not mean you subscribe to an ideology, any more than calling someone you don't respect "sir".
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
You lost me. Where does confusion enter into a conversation between two third parties, referring to someone else by their observable sex?