Moderated Using wrong pronouns= violence??

[Paul2]

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.

Granting that, a few decades ago, at least one dictionary defined "he" as the (inferred) male previously mentioned, it would seem to be a necessary consequence of your implied position that some English dictionary before a few decades ago would have defined "he" in some way contrary with "the (inferred) male previously mentioned." Do I have that right? Is there such a dictionary?

 

[d4m10n]

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

I suppose gender could be arbitrarily assigned to individual humans or groups of humans based on one's sense of where they fit into an overall grammar, just as it is arbitrarily assigned to one's fatherland, or motherland, or (non-binary) homeland. That wouldn't make anyone happy, neither the preferred pronoun brigade nor their loyal opposition.

 

[Upchurch]

Granting that, a few decades ago, at least one dictionary defined "he" as the (inferred) male previously mentioned, it would seem to be a necessary consequence of your implied position that some English dictionary before a few decades ago would have defined "he" in some way contrary with "the (inferred) male previously mentioned." Do I have that right? Is there such a dictionary?

No, you don't have that right at all. You missed it completely. The fact that you are clinging to an idea that there must exist a dictionary with the correct definition is evidence of that.

Language is constantly evolving. Picking one, arbitrary, point in past and declaring this is The Truth^TM and everything that currently differs from it is absolutely wrong, is pointless and self-defeating. It is so because the point in the past you select, whatever point that is, has a different context and a different understanding of that context and the language used to describe it.

All that really matters is how language is being used now with in the context of now and how we understand it.



Aside and not part of the point I am trying to make: Which doesn't mean that we cannot understand language as it was used historically, we absolutely can, but we have to understand it within the context it was used. Shakespearian English can be hard to read and understand from a modern context, but once you start to understand the context of patterns and idioms from it was written, it becomes much easier.

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...

Yes. and is "dog" masculine because of it's DNA or because it was socially assigned a gender?

 

[Paul2]

I suppose gender could be arbitrarily assigned to individual humans or groups of humans based on one's sense of where they fit into an overall grammar, just as it is arbitrarily assigned to one's fatherland, or motherland, or (non-binary) homeland. That wouldn't make anyone happy, neither the preferred pronoun brigade nor their loyal opposition.

You've just hit on the only fair solution.

/s

 

[arthwollipot]

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.)

Sure, but we're not talking about that. We're talking about cases where someone has requested that you use a particular pronoun, and the reasons for refusing to comply.

 

[arthwollipot]

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.

It was literally the first link Google gave me when I asked. Regardless, it does demonstrate that I'm not the only person of this opinion, and that advocacy groups also hold this opinion. And like I said, I haven't encountered any group or website that holds the contrary opinion. So it's a case of "if everybody is saying x, and nobody (except for you) is saying y, why should I think y?"

 

[arthwollipot]

Look up the word "he" in any dictionary that's more than about twenty years old.

Why should I care what a 20 year old dictionary says? I want to use language the way it is used now.

 

[Sherkeu]

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.

There is a crossdresser I know who gets aroused by being referred to as a 'woman' in any way that is done. As he has aged he dresses as a woman more and more. It is his fetish and he admits that to me in clear terms. I do not refer to HIM as a woman. He still is my friend but if it was somehow legally forced upon be (as in, if he sued me in court or something and a judge said I had to say 'she' or a reporter or a professor, or some at-large mandate etc....) I would consider it forced verbal prostitution.
You simply cannot make a blanket statement that preferred pronouns need be adhered to in all circumstances.
I wont change my mind on this. I have lived it. My words are my own and not someones sexual gratification.

 

[Upchurch]

I wont change my mind on this. I have lived it. My words are my own and not someones sexual gratification.

Just so I have this correct, you are taking a hard-line, unshakable stance based on an experience that never actually happened?

 

[Upchurch]

You've just hit on the only fair solution.

/s

 

[Myriad]

Just so I have this correct, you are taking a hard-line, unshakable stance based on an experience that never actually happened?

Um, in what way is that wrong to do?

"I would never agree to have sex with a stranger for $500."

"If I were standing on the roof of the Burj Khalifa I wouldn't jump off."

"If my clothing caught fire I would stop drop and roll."

"If I had a pet ferret I wouldn't coat it with peanut butter and carry it around in my underpants."

As I am currently ferretless, not on fire, and far from the Burj Khalifa, and no stranger has ever offered me $500 for sex, I suppose I can't take such hard-line unshakeable stances? I'm not seeing it.

 

[Paul2]

No, you don't have that right at all. You missed it completely. The fact that you are clinging to an idea that there must exist a dictionary with the correct definition is evidence of that.

Language is constantly evolving. Picking one, arbitrary, point in past and declaring this is The Truth^TM and everything that currently differs from it is absolutely wrong, is pointless and self-defeating. It is so because the point in the past you select, whatever point that is, has a different context and a different understanding of that context and the language used to describe it.

What I suspect is that it's not a point, it's a period of time, and I'd bet that it's a fairly long period of time that the word "he" - or earlier variants of it - meant a male previously mentioned. This is an empirical question as to how long in the past, starting from a couple of decades ago, has "he" meant that.

All that really matters is how language is being used now with in the context of now and how we understand it.

Matters for what purpose?

 

[Aber]

Apparently yes, in Mexico

Civil society leader and former Mexican Congressman, Rodrigo Iván Cortés, has been convicted of “gender based political violence” over posts on Twitter and Facebook referring to transgender-identifying Mexican Congressional representative, Salma Luévano, as a “man who self-ascribes as a woman”.

https://adfinternational.org/rodrigo-oas-assembly/

Caveat - I don't have any background knowledge of Mexican politics, but seemed very on-topic.

 

[Upchurch]

As I am currently ferretless, not on fire, and far from the Burj Khalifa, and no stranger has ever offered me $500 for sex, I suppose I can't take such hard-line unshakeable stances? I'm not seeing it.

You can, but you know that prostitution, gravity, combustion, ferrets, and peanut butter are real things. Sherkeu, who presumably lives in California along with Disneyland, is basing their statement on the fear of something that can't happen in the US.

It's like saying, "I will never go into vile the forests of California...", which is not unreasonable, although perhaps a bit harsh of an opinion. There are plenty of reason to either not want go to either California or into forests, in general. But then adding, "...if those Jewish space lasers are going to set them on fire!"

The premise has no validity, didn't happen, and isn't likely to happen without an incredible change in how the world works.

What I suspect is that it's not a point, it's a period of time, and I'd bet that it's a fairly long period of time that the word "he" - or earlier variants of it - meant a male previously mentioned.

Do you really think that language, society, and even humanity is so simplistic and black-and-white? Do you think, perhaps, in that arbitrary period of time you mention, it would be terribly difficult or trivially easy to find instances where "he" was used to refer to something other than biological male or "she" was refer to something other than a biological female?

Matters for what purpose?

Specifically, to show that these "my dictionary is older than your dictionary" arguments are pointless and don't really matter. And there have been tons of them in this thread. All of them have been cherry-picked and none have stood up to scrutiny. That tact has been tried. It fails again and again.

 

[arthwollipot]

There is a crossdresser I know who gets aroused by being referred to as a 'woman' in any way that is done. As he has aged he dresses as a woman more and more. It is his fetish and he admits that to me in clear terms. I do not refer to HIM as a woman. He still is my friend but if it was somehow legally forced upon be (as in, if he sued me in court or something and a judge said I had to say 'she' or a reporter or a professor, or some at-large mandate etc....) I would consider it forced verbal prostitution.
You simply cannot make a blanket statement that preferred pronouns need be adhered to in all circumstances.
I wont change my mind on this. I have lived it. My words are my own and not someones sexual gratification.

You are conflating transvestitism - a sexual fetish - with being transgender. Your friend's correct pronouns are he/him. I once worked with a drag queen who regularly came to work in clothes traditionally worn by women. I asked because I wasn't sure and he confirmed that he/him were correct. Neither your friend nor my work colleague are transgender.

 

[Matthew Best]

Neither your friend nor my work colleague are transgender.

That seems like gatekeeping. Surely they are transgender if they say they are?

 

[jeremyp]

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.

We are talking about English here, not German. English doesn’t have gendered nouns except “ship” weirdly. In English, gendered pronouns were only used for things that have a sex and ships. Until recently, in English, gender and sex were considered to be roughly the same thing at least for the purposes of choosing a pronoun.

People are trying to change that and I am fine with it, but please don’t gaslight the situation as it used to be by bringing up examples from languages that aren’t English.

 

[jeremyp]

Why should I care what a 20 year old dictionary says? I want to use language the way it is used now.

I was just explaining why you won’t find resources explicitly stating why the person using the pronoun used to get to choose which one to use.

 

[Paul2]

Do you really think that language, society, and even humanity is so simplistic and black-and-white?

There's nothing in what I wrote to remotely suggest that. Language can be fluid and complex and *still* it can be empirically true (or false, too) that some word has retained one stable meaning for a fair while.

Do you think, perhaps, in that arbitrary period of time you mention,

Not sure what is arbitrary about it; I'm talking about the period of time for which the word "he" has retained the meaning previously mentioned.

it would be terribly difficult or trivially easy to find instances where "he" was used to refer to something other than biological male or "she" was refer to something other than a biological female?

Nothing I said stated nor implied that "he" can't have other meanings than referring to a previously mentioned male. Words can take on new meanings while still maintaining their original meaning. Also, the original definition up-thread included things that weren't human in the definition of those pronouns (like a ship is "she," etc.). Not sure what the point is here.

Specifically, to show that these "my dictionary is older than your dictionary" arguments are pointless and don't really matter. And there have been tons of them in this thread. All of them have been cherry-picked and none have stood up to scrutiny. That tact has been tried. It fails again and again.

You're missing what I was asking that mattered. I'll try again: Why is how language is used now, in current context, the only thing that matters for this thread?

 

[pgwenthold]

For example, my parents' Chambers from 1983 says "the male (or thing inferred to be male) named before".

I'm not sure what you are arguing.

See the part about the "thing inferred to be male"

In order for that gender to be inferred, it must be implied. By stating our pronouns, we are explicitly implying )) a gender. Don't leave the implication to be too mild and make sure it is understood and inferred directly.

I see nothing in your definition from 1983 that contradicts the modern usage.

If nothing else, it is very clear that the proper pronoun for someone who presents as male would be he. That would include trans males. It doesn't require a penis.