• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Moderated Using wrong pronouns= violence??

Hercules56 said:
Most states do not equate emotional trauma with physical damage, caused through violence. At least with regard to their penal codes.
Click to expand...

Who is talking about law? You said the comparison with physical violence is silly. Psychological trauma isn’t silly at all and can be very serious and life threatening.
 
Upchurch said:
Who is talking about law? You said the comparison with physical violence is silly. Psychological trauma isn’t silly at all and can be very serious and life threatening.
Click to expand...

Put it this way: one isolated incident of kicking someone in the head and causing severe physical trauma could put you in prison for a very long time.

However one isolated incident of calling somebody a "jerk" and unfortunately causing severe emotional trauma to a highly sensitive and fragile individual, it's likely not going to get you any time in prison at all.
 
There is some precedent

No idea is there any update on that case.

Several other examples of bullying and social isolation and stigmation causing physical damage can be found, but this was by far the most interesting one since causation could be established so well that there was a sentence.
 
Hercules56 said:
Put it this way: one isolated incident of kicking someone in the head and causing severe physical trauma could put you in prison for a very long time.

However one isolated incident of calling somebody a "jerk" and unfortunately causing severe emotional trauma to a highly sensitive and fragile individual, it's likely not going to get you any time in prison at all.
Click to expand...

You have so many assumptions going on there. You can't assume you know a person's entire backstory. You don't get to decide what is traumatic for other people.

An example you might understand, a single clap to someone's back couldn't possibly cause serious harm, right? Except maybe you didn't know that person has had extensive spinal problems and a hit, just right, could incapacitate them entirely. You don't get to decide that clapping someone on the back hurt them.
 
I've got an idea. Let's abolish gendered pronouns altogether. The function of a pronoun is to act as a placeholder for a noun in a sentence. "I wound up the clock because it had stopped". The word "it" here stands in for "the clock". As such pronouns do not need to convey gender at all.

Here are some pronouns: I, you, he, she, they, we, it. Only the third person singular pronouns are gendered and then only when referring to something that can be divided into sexes/genders.

I propose that we resolve this problem of pronoun violence by abolishing the gendered third person pronouns and replacing them with a single unified third person singular pronoun. We can use "they/them" or, if we are concerned about plurals, make something new* up.


* please don't let it start with an "x".
 
Hercules56 said:
Put it this way: one isolated incident of kicking someone in the head and causing severe physical trauma could put you in prison for a very long time.

However one isolated incident of calling somebody a "jerk" and unfortunately causing severe emotional trauma to a highly sensitive and fragile individual, it's likely not going to get you any time in prison at all.
Click to expand...

It seems like your definition of a damaging act as something for which you can get sent to prison.

Why?

There are all kind of activities that do real damage to people for which you will not go to prison.

Instinctively, I tend to think that the term "violence" is hyperbolic when referring to non-physical things, but on reflection, I can't think of a better word to describe verbal abuse.

I do think that for using the wrong pronouns to be a form of violence it would have to be done in an abusive manner.
 
jeremyp said:
I've got an idea. Let's abolish gendered pronouns altogether. The function of a pronoun is to act as a placeholder for a noun in a sentence. "I wound up the clock because it had stopped". The word "it" here stands in for "the clock". As such pronouns do not need to convey gender at all.

Here are some pronouns: I, you, he, she, they, we, it. Only the third person singular pronouns are gendered and then only when referring to something that can be divided into sexes/genders.

I propose that we resolve this problem of pronoun violence by abolishing the gendered third person pronouns and replacing them with a single unified third person singular pronoun. We can use "they/them" or, if we are concerned about plurals, make something new* up.


* please don't let it start with an "x".
Click to expand...

I also don't think gendered pronouns are necessary.

But I don't think we even really need to make new ones. Just discard some redundant ones.

For example, use "he/her" universally and "his" as possessive. The plural (they/them) remain unchanged. basically, just drop "she" and "him."

Fully agree about the "x."

ETA: Started thinking about this because my vet refers to all animals as "he/him" regardless of sex.
 
Last edited:
TomB said:
I also don't think gendered pronouns are necessary.

But I don't think we even really need to make new ones. Just discard some redundant ones.

For example, use "he/her" universally and "his" as possessive. The plural (they/them) remain unchanged. basically, just drop "she" and "him."

Fully agree about the "x."

ETA: Started thinking about this because my vet refers to all animals as "he/him" regardless of sex.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Lets get rid of them all, just call people "thit".
 
Hercules56 said:
I reached out to UC Boulder to get clarification on their position for this issue. But some in this thread seem to suggest that one single incident of using the wrong pronoun could be seen as an act of violence and I guess also harassment.
Click to expand...

You should provide evidence or retract that.
 
lobosrul5 said:
Ok, give me some quotes from upthread. BTW Arthwollipot argued precisely the opposite. That one usage could not be harassment. BTW You said harassment AND violence. I agree with your statement with regards to the latter, but not the former.
Click to expand...

Here is one:


Thermal said:
Must? Nope. The article clearly says "can be", and I'd agree, it can. But the article goes on at great length to talk about making mistakes and how that is not a big deal at all.

My question is whether we should take one mildly hyperbolic word use in an aside and distort it to a Quixotic Strawman of Wokeness.
Click to expand...
 
Upchurch said:
Which is basically how the OP article put it. Accidents happen. That's not what this is about.
Click to expand...

OP article says:

"Choosing to ignore or disrespect someone’s pronouns is not only an act of oppression but can also be considered an act of violence."

We aren't talking about accidents.
 
Hercules56 said:
OP article says:

"Choosing to ignore or disrespect someone’s pronouns is not only an act of oppression but can also be considered an act of violence."

We aren't talking about accidents.
Click to expand...

Ahem

Hercules56 said:
https://www.colorado.edu/cisc/pride-office/lgbtq-resources/pronouns
Click to expand...

Would calling a transgender person by the wrong pronoun (like referring to a trans woman as “he”) be offensive?

If you do it purposefully with malicious intent, absolutely.

If you do it on accident and you meant for the best, no way.

But, if you continue to do it on accident and make no effort to change, then yes, it is offensive.

Making mistakes
Totally fine, it happens to everyone!

What’s most important is that you don’t make a big deal about it. Just apologize quickly, correct yourself and move on.
Click to expand...

They are talking about malicious intent, not accidents.

ETA: The word "Choosing" in your quote is a very important one.
 
Last edited:
Hercules56 said:
Here is one:
Click to expand...

Dafuq are you reading, dude? First off, I didn't refer to a single use of the wrong pronoun in the quote you cite. That means straight up that you are lying. Not cool. Second, I agree that it can be a form of violence, as we have patiently and repeatedly defined the normal definition of violence (not your personal one). I have clarified at length that I think violence is not the best word to use, but meaning "intending to hurt" puts it in the same ballpark.

ETA: you seemed to have conveniently overlooked my direct response to the specific question:

Thermal said:
I think violence is an unnecessarily charged word for it, but I agree that you can use almost any word in a violent spirit or intent.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Thermal said:
Dafuq are you reading, dude? First off, I didn't refer to a single use of the wrong pronoun in the quote you cite. That means straight up that you are lying. Not cool. Second, I agree that it can be a form of violence, as we have patiently and repeatedly defined the normal definition of violence (not your personal one). I have clarified at length that I think violence is not the best word to use, but meaning "intending to hurt" puts it in the same ballpark.
Click to expand...

Your quote did not specify repeated use or single use. It was fair to assume you meant to include the single use of a purposefully incorrect pronoun.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom