Moderated Using wrong pronouns= violence??
- Thread starter d4m10n
- Start date
Thermal
August Member
Dude. Seriously. Resolved pages and pages ago. No one but you thinks this is on the table.
"And then the whole bus clapped."
Thermal
August Member
Dude,I've guessed mother ******* phylums wrong more often than that. But in the 99% majority of times, I nail the sex right. I'd venture that you got actual genders wrong a whole lot more, and were never made aware of it.
lobosrul5
Philosopher
The odds that you are correct are quite high. I've only been corrected twice that I can recall.
Hercules56
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2013
- Messages
- 17,176
Its the subject of the thread. Guess we can keep discussing it ad infinitum.
lobosrul5
Philosopher
Lots of people and organizations have "requirements" in which they insist upon for social, or other, interaction.
If I met arthwollipot and I insisted on calling his child he/she rather than whichever pronouns his child wants, arthwollipot can decide not to be friends with me, and sever all communications if he so chooses. He can also do so if I chose not to used specified pronouns for a celebrity neither of us know, or communicate with. Which IMO would be silly, but he'd be perfectly within his rights to do so.
This is a just about perfect, real world, analogy to a student at BYU being told: you shall refer to religious leaders as "bishop". If you choose not to you are free to pursue higher education elsewhere.
Neither example is an illegal restriction upon speech within the USA.
Last edited:
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
Am I obligated to refer to them as "Sister" throughout the entire party? Do I have to refer to them as "Sister" when I'm talking to someone else? Do I have to refer to them as "Sister" the next day when I'm talking about the party so someone who wasn't even there?
That's the difference here.
If I actually meet G-Flip in person, and I'm talking to someone right there in front of them, I'll probably be nice and do the polite thing.
But wolli is insisting not that we be courteous to G-Flip while in their presence... but all the time. We're being told that we must accept G-Flip's personal belief about themself even when they're not present, and will never ever know about it.
In your analogy, we're being told that in order to be courteous, we have to refer to the partygoer as "Sister" three days later when we're telling our coworker about the party, and we have to start saying prayers at dinner time.
Because failure to accept someone else's belief as "valid" even when they're not present is a form of emotional violence.
Last edited:
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
Are you seriously, on a skeptical site inhabited largely by atheists, that we must all use religious titles when referring to someone who is not here, and whose faith we don't ascribe to... because failure to be obsequious to the beliefs of a religion we don't accept is "rude"?
FFS, are you going to take it upon yourself to "correct" me if I refer to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. without the "Reverend" part?
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
You better be careful. Don't you dare talk about the great Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. without including the honorific "Reverend". It might be violence if you leave that out, you know.
lobosrul5
Philosopher
Pretty sure you've missed the point on that one
Most of the courtesies we have are due to the upper class and nobility demanding that the lower classes and peasants must refer to them in special ways. The "sir" and "ma'am" are only relatively newly extended to include all people, they were initially a term of (obligated) respect that one used when addressing one's betters. The upper crust would never be caught dead using the honorific "sir" when speaking to a mere plebian... unless it were laden with sarcasm and intended as an insult, of course.
"Sir" and "ma'm" are not the only examples of manners and politeness. Are you REALLY making the argument that the "plebians" were a bunch of impolite, unmannered... and I dunno.. ruffians(?) before the upper crust came along? And now they are only polite to each other (even though the upper crust doesn't demand that part of it), because that somehow over time rubbed off on them? And that naturally
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Yes, those posh gits forced us not to be asterisks.
Help, help, I'm being repressed!
Last edited:
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
No, that's not my argument. And I really don't think it reads that way. FFS, they're "courtesies" because they originated as the behavior expected to be shown in the court, and also expected to be shown to anybody who appears in the court.
[Lemony Snickett]
The word "court" in this sense means "the sovereign and officers and advisers who are the governing power".
[/Lemony Snickett]
I hope this is not wildly off topic. A friend was telling me about her daughter who was in a senior class with a student, formally identified as female who (seriously) wanted to be identified as a potato. They (I suppose) wore shirts with potatoes on it and wanted to be referred to as “potato”. The school responded by accepting the student’s identity but said they would refer to (them?) as Gem (are potato gems a thing everywhere?). Anyway this seemed to solve the potential problem.
Maybe creativity and a bit of humour can resolve difficulties in this area…… Nah, not likely.
Maybe creativity and a bit of humour can resolve difficulties in this area…… Nah, not likely.
ThatGuy11200
Muse
Yes. Using a word someone doesn't want you to use implies contempt.
"Duurr I identity as an attack helicopter!"
The difference is I’m not making anything up.
ThatGuy11200
Muse
If that helps you cope, sure.
Let's go back to this. ^
When I was a young child, in the 80s, I had long hair. I remember several occasions when women would say something along the lines of, "You're a pretty girl, aren't you?"
So, their perception was that I was a girl, but then they were corrected by my mum that I was, in fact, a boy.
If you were in their position, would the demands on your brain be too great for you to consciously alter your perception?
I am putting *this* thread on moderated status.
The topic is, as has been stated previously, whether misgendering someone is an act of violence. Correct use of pronouns might be considered sufficiently close to the topic.
It is not whether transwomen are women. It is not on the reality of gender. It is not whether non-binary people exist.
I, or some other mod will be clearing out some of the previous posts between this and the previous modbox.
The topic is, as has been stated previously, whether misgendering someone is an act of violence. Correct use of pronouns might be considered sufficiently close to the topic.
It is not whether transwomen are women. It is not on the reality of gender. It is not whether non-binary people exist.
I, or some other mod will be clearing out some of the previous posts between this and the previous modbox.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic Posted By: jimbob