Moderated Using wrong pronouns= violence??

[Upchurch]

Any policy which sanctions people for using the wrong words is prescriptive not descriptive.

We're talking about people's preferred pronouns that match their gender identity. That is precisely what the guidelines are suggesting you use. They're only wrong if the person doesn't know their own preferred pronouns, which is inherently subjective to the person.

What you're saying is not applicable in this case.

Nope, you can't say what you think even if it isn't directed as a specific person or group.

Source? There is nothing relating to this in the OP article.

 

[Darat]

Here follows a hypothetical scenario, which may or may not resemble a conversation from real life.

Alfa: Man it would be sweet if Sam Smith dated G-Flip.

Beto: You think so? I think she’s too hot for him these days.

Alfa: Whoa there, Beto! Pronouns, please!

Beto: LOL, wut.

Alfa: You have to use they/them for Sam & G, because they don’t see themselves as either men or women.

Beto: I do see them as a man and woman, though. In fact, I know which one would be at risk of being impregnated by the other one if they didn’t take prophylactic measures.

Alfa: I meant “man” and “woman” as gender identities, not as signifiers of sex.

Beto: Okay, but you could tell what I meant by “man” and “woman” though.

Alfa: Fine, but you have to use the pronouns that they would have you use.

Beto: Why? They aren’t even here.​

I'm not going to answer Beto's question here, because that would put me at risk of strawpersoning the argument in favor of using pronouns to signify gender identity rather than sexual physiology. Suffice to say that Beto is listening with an open mind, and might well be persuadable.

p.s. Dunno whether to post this in the main trans thread or here in the pronoun thread. I’ll try it here first and if it gets bitbucketed then I’ll repost over there.

Charlie: Whose round is it?

 

[dirtywick]

You can say what you think, but you can't make it personal. Schools have this funny thing about not bullying students, faculty, or visitors on campus.

no, you can say what you think whenever and wherever you want and make it as personal as you want. not everyone is going to like it and you might not like their reactions. which is the part they don't want to deal with.

 

[Upchurch]

no, you can say what you think whenever and wherever you want and make it as personal as you want. not everyone is going to like it and you might not like their reactions. which is the part they don't want to deal with.

You might be correct. The guidelines don't specify any consequences if one maliciously misgenders someone. At the top, however, include the statement:

The university supports an inclusive environment.

So, I suppose it depends on what they mean by "support".

A quick search found their Student Code of Conduct (PDF). If by support, they mean that intentional misgendering of a specific student counts as Abusive Conduct as defined in F1, then it is a violation of the code of conduct. There are many, many steps involved there, but the most extreme consequences include expulsion and revocation of admission, seen at the bottom of I3.

By my reading, you'd have to be super dedicated to bullying transgender students, faculty, or visitors for it to get that far, but I suppose it is possible.

 

[Emily's Cat]

You might be correct. The guidelines don't specify any consequences if one maliciously misgenders someone. At the top, however, include the statement:

So, I suppose it depends on what they mean by "support".

A quick search found their Student Code of Conduct (PDF). If by support, they mean that intentional misgendering of a specific student counts as Abusive Conduct as defined in F1, then it is a violation of the code of conduct. There are many, many steps involved there, but the most extreme consequences include expulsion and revocation of admission, seen at the bottom of I3.

By my reading, you'd have to be super dedicated to bullying transgender students, faculty, or visitors for it to get that far, but I suppose it is possible.

I'd say the university isn't being very inclusive. Or more to the point, they're being selectively inclusive of a very specific group of people, and in the process they're being intentionally exclusionary to anyone who does not practice that system of belief.

 

[Upchurch]

I'd say the university isn't being very inclusive. Or more to the point, they're being selectively inclusive of a very specific group of people, and in the process they're being intentionally exclusionary to anyone who does not practice that system of belief.

What are you talking about? What system of belief and how are they being excluded?

 

[arthwollipot]

Since when are pronouns are supposed to reflect what the speaker thinks about someone's gender? I think that's the main thing I'm not getting here. Pronouns aren't about what you perceive as someones gender, they are about what that person perceives about their own gender. The other way around is just... nonsense. Utter nonsense.

 

[Paul2]

Since when are pronouns are supposed to reflect what the speaker thinks about someone's gender? I think that's the main thing I'm not getting here. Pronouns aren't about what you perceive as someones gender, they are about what that person perceives about their own gender. The other way around is just... nonsense. Utter nonsense.

Why is that nonsense? I'm not saying it isn't, I just want to hear your rationale.

 

[Thermal]

Since when are pronouns are supposed to reflect what the speaker thinks about someone's gender? I think that's the main thing I'm not getting here. Pronouns aren't about what you perceive as someones gender, they are about what that person perceives about their own gender. The other way around is just... nonsense. Utter nonsense.

It's not about their gender; it's about their apparent sex. And when they are third person, it's never about the second person reference perspective.

Although it's fair to say that the sex-specific pronouns came about long before 64 genders were trending, so they didn't see all this action coming.

 

[arthwollipot]

Why is that nonsense? I'm not saying it isn't, I just want to hear your rationale.

It's such a deeply fundamental concept to me that I'm going to have to take a moment to think about exactly how to reply.

It's not about their gender; it's about their apparent sex.

I confess to being extremely confused about where you get the idea that pronouns are about someone's apparent sex - or to use a more appropriate term, their gender presentation. I honestly do not understand how you have come to this conclusion. It goes against everything I know about not only gender issues, but the English language and the definition of the word itself, and I have never heard someone express that (to me) bizarre concept before this thread. Not even in our earlier threads about pronouns do I recall anyone making that claim. So congratulations, I guess. I've been around the block a few times and you've sprung a new one on me.

Pronouns are personal, and closely tied to a person's gender identity, regardless of how they present. It wouldn't be at all inaccurate to say that a person's name and pronoun is just as important to them as their presentation. It is an important part of the social transition, and resisting it denies a person this important psychological and social aspect of their transition.

Regardless, when someone says "I don't want you to call me she, can you please call me they instead?" why do you think it's acceptable to refuse? Isn't that just rude?

 

[arthwollipot]

I've looked in vain for any resource that says that the person using the pronoun gets to choose the pronoun they use to refer to another person. It may be because my google search results are biased by my previous activity, but if anyone can show me a reliable source that says that pronouns refer to gender presentation and are chosen by the speaker, I'd appreciate it.

Meanwhile, I have found this, in case you think I'm pulling this stuff from my nether regions:

https://pronouns.org/what-and-why

WHAT ARE PERSONAL PRONOUNS AND WHY DO THEY MATTER?
In English, whether we realize it or not, people frequently refer to us using pronouns when speaking about us. Often, when speaking of a singular human in the third person, these pronouns have a gender implied -- such as “he” to refer to a man/boy or “she” to refer to a woman/girl. These associations are not always accurate or helpful.

Often, people make assumptions about the gender of another person based on the person’s appearance or name. These assumptions aren’t always correct, and the act of making an assumption (even if correct) sends a potentially harmful message -- that people have to look a certain way to demonstrate the gender that they are or are not.

Using someone’s correct personal pronouns is a way to respect them and create an inclusive environment, just as using a person’s name can be a way to respect them. Just as it can be offensive or even harassing to make up a nickname for someone and call them that nickname against their will, it can be offensive or harassing to guess at someone’s pronouns and refer to them using those pronouns if that is not how that person wants to be known. Or, worse, actively choosing to ignore the pronouns someone has stated that they go by could imply the oppressive notion that intersex, transgender, nonbinary, and gender nonconforming people do not or should not exist.

There is more information at that link. Whether you consider this source authoritative or not is, I guess, up to you. It doesn't provide links to peer-reviewed publications, but there are links to other sites in the Resources section.

 

[Lplus]

I've looked in vain for any resource that says that the person using the pronoun gets to choose the pronoun they use to refer to another person. It may be because my google search results are biased by my previous activity, but if anyone can show me a reliable source that says that pronouns refer to gender presentation and are chosen by the speaker, I'd appreciate it.

Meanwhile, I have found this, in case you think I'm pulling this stuff from my nether regions:

https://pronouns.org/what-and-why

There is more information at that link. Whether you consider this source authoritative or not is, I guess, up to you. It doesn't provide links to peer-reviewed publications, but there are links to other sites in the Resources section.

That site appears to have been set up specifically to promote that point of view. The phrase "They would say that, wouldn't they" comes to mind.

 

[jeremyp]

I've looked in vain for any resource that says that the person using the pronoun gets to choose the pronoun they use to refer to another person. It may be because my google search results are biased by my previous activity, but if anyone can show me a reliable source that says that pronouns refer to gender presentation and are chosen by the speaker, I'd appreciate it.

Meanwhile, I have found this, in case you think I'm pulling this stuff from my nether regions:

https://pronouns.org/what-and-why

There is more information at that link. Whether you consider this source authoritative or not is, I guess, up to you. It doesn't provide links to peer-reviewed publications, but there are links to other sites in the Resources section.

Look up the word "he" in any dictionary that's more than about twenty years old. For example, my parents' Chambers from 1983 says "the male (or thing inferred to be male) named before". When you were growing up did you ever have to be instructed on the correct way to assign pronouns? No, you didn't.

You won't find any "resource that says that the person using the pronoun gets to choose the pronoun" because that was just the way it was, since pronouns in English were invented. Everybody used the pronouns they deemed appropriate based on what they knew of the person's gender/sex. If they got it wrong (e.g. I always used to refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tracy_Kidder]the author of The Soul of a New Machine as "she" until I found out who he was), well that was a mistake and they perhaps corrected it and then moved on with their life.

The fact that there is so much writing about misgendering and pressure to declare your pronouns for the benefit of others is a tacit acknowledgement that, in the past, the person using the pronoun did get to choose and now we are trying to change the previous accepted behaviour.

 

[Upchurch]

Okay, let’s put a nail in the coffin of all this “my dictionary is older than your dictionary” nonsense.

The Germanic root language is at least 2000 years old, as per when the Romans first encountered it, and Latin is 700 to 1000 years older than that, at least. These two root languages make up the majority of modern European languages (with other outside influences, but it’s largely based on those two) and, because American English is mostly based on British English.

Every one of those languages have gender-based, not sex-based, nouns and are referred to with gendered articles and pronouns. I don’t care how hard you look, you will never find a German library, British ship, or Spanish water that is biologically female.

Yes, languages evolve and change all the time, but if one is going to argue that they shouldn’t actually, arbitrarily picking a point a few decades ago and claiming that’s how it’s always been and always should be, is a self-defeating argument. Heck it doesn’t even match how language worked an arbitrary few decades ago. American ships are still “she” as is America herself, and has been since its founding. Again, you’ll never find America’s “nation gametes” that make it biologically female.

 

[Lplus]

Okay, let’s put a nail in the coffin of all this “my dictionary is older than your dictionary” nonsense.

The Germanic root language is at least 2000 years old, as per when the Romans first encountered it, and Latin is 700 to 1000 years older than that, at least. These two root languages make up the majority of modern European languages (with other outside influences, but it’s largely based on those two) and, because American English is mostly based on British English.

Every one of those languages have gender-based, not sex-based, nouns and are referred to with gendered articles and pronouns. I don’t care how hard you look, you will never find a German library, British ship, or Spanish water that is biologically female.

Yes, languages evolve and change all the time, but if one is going to argue that they shouldn’t actually, arbitrarily picking a point a few decades ago and claiming that’s how it’s always been and always should be, is a self-defeating argument. Heck it doesn’t even match how language worked an arbitrary few decades ago. American ships are still “she” as is America herself, and has been since its founding. Again, you’ll never find America’s “nation gametes” that make it biologically female.

Yes, very good, but we're talking about the human race here, not ships or libraries.

 

[TomB]

I've looked in vain for any resource that says that the person using the pronoun gets to choose the pronoun they use to refer to another person. It may be because my google search results are biased by my previous activity, but if anyone can show me a reliable source that says that pronouns refer to gender presentation and are chosen by the speaker, I'd appreciate it.

Meanwhile, I have found this, in case you think I'm pulling this stuff from my nether regions:

https://pronouns.org/what-and-why

There is more information at that link. Whether you consider this source authoritative or not is, I guess, up to you. It doesn't provide links to peer-reviewed publications, but there are links to other sites in the Resources section.

A minor quibble with this.

Pronouns are often used in reference to people unknown to the speaker. In those cases pronouns are usually selected by the observer: "She looks like she's in a hurry!" "He's going to get a ticket if he doesn't slow down." etc.

In cases like that, gender presentation/apparent sex (whichever) is most likely going to determine the selection. (Some people may routinely use "they" in these cases, but I don't see that as the rule.)

 

[Thermal]

Okay, let’s put a nail in the coffin of all this “my dictionary is older than your dictionary” nonsense.

The Germanic root language is at least 2000 years old, as per when the Romans first encountered it, and Latin is 700 to 1000 years older than that, at least. These two root languages make up the majority of modern European languages (with other outside influences, but it’s largely based on those two) and, because American English is mostly based on British English.

Every one of those languages have gender-based, not sex-based, nouns and are referred to with gendered articles and pronouns. I don’t care how hard you look, you will never find a German library, British ship, or Spanish water that is biologically female.
Yes, languages evolve and change all the time, but if one is going to argue that they shouldn’t actually, arbitrarily picking a point a few decades ago and claiming that’s how it’s always been and always should be, is a self-defeating argument. Heck it doesn’t even match how language worked an arbitrary few decades ago. American ships are still “she” as is America herself, and has been since its founding. Again, you’ll never find America’s “nation gametes” that make it biologically female.

And you will never find a German library that self ******* identifies as a woman either. I really wouldn't have thought that needed explaining.

Dude, that has to be the worst argument ever put forth on these hallowed fora.

 

[Upchurch]

Okay, for those who are still missing the point, in the context of European languages, articles and pronouns, when they are not neuter, are based on gender, not biological sex. German "dog" is masculine. German "cat" is feminine. It has nothing to do with biological sex and pointing to 40 year old dictionaries doesn't change that historical foundation.

 

[Thermal]

It's such a deeply fundamental concept to me that I'm going to have to take a moment to think about exactly how to reply.

That's the gig, innit? You had it baked in that pronouns were about how a third person thinks about themselves (no idea how you would know most people that intimately, but whatever). A lot of us had it baked in that "if they are a boy/man, you use he, etc". No questionnaire presented to the person you are referring to. Just a simple "male? He".

I confess to being extremely confused about where you get the idea that pronouns are about someone's apparent sex - or to use a more appropriate term, their gender presentation. I honestly do not understand how you have come to this conclusion. It goes against everything I know about not only gender issues, but the English language and the definition of the word itself, and I have never heard someone express that (to me) bizarre concept before this thread. Not even in our earlier threads about pronouns do I recall anyone making that claim. So congratulations, I guess. I've been around the block a few times and you've sprung a new one on me.

No, it's not the more appropriate term. That's the entirety of the argument here. I don't give a fat rats petootie what is going on in the inner self image of someone I am pointing at. Between myself and the person I am talking to, I am making a visual call. Exactly as if I was referring to a woman with blonde hair, whether or not it was dyed. Visually, they are that blonde over there. Or that jacked dude, without checking with him first to see if he felt like he was a bit womanish today.

Pronouns are personal, and closely tied to a person's gender identity, regardless of how they present. It wouldn't be at all inaccurate to say that a person's name and pronoun is just as important to them as their presentation. It is an important part of the social transition, and resisting it denies a person this important psychological and social aspect of their transition.

Regardless, when someone says "I don't want you to call me she, can you please call me they instead?" why do you think it's acceptable to refuse? Isn't that just rude?

Better question: who said what I thought was acceptable? You're making **** up. Referring to them when they were present (or to someone tuned into whatever their presentation was), I would almost certainly refer to them as "they". If was referring to them when they (or their gender advocates) were not around, and the person I was speaking to was another underwoke clod like myself, I would probably use the objective identifier.

Back to the OP, I would consider it hostile, if not outright violent, to repeatedly use a term in front of them that causes them distress, as I have no desire to pointlessly bring someone pain. But if they are not present, they do not get to dictate my reality and demand I deny the evidence of my senses for their unknowing reinforcement. .

 

[Lplus]

Okay, for those who are still missing the point, in the context of European languages, articles and pronouns, when they are not neuter, are based on gender, not biological sex. German "dog" is masculine. German "cat" is feminine. It has nothing to do with biological sex and pointing to 40 year old dictionaries doesn't change that historical foundation.

A - We're speaking English

B - The german "Dog" is masculine, the german "Bitch" is feminine

C - the german tomcat is masculine

D - Guess whether the german male and female are masculine or feminine...