They/Them She/Her He/Him - as you will

[ZiprHead]

FYI for our fellow politickers:
A gender field has been added to user profiles to denote pronouns if you wish to use it.

Add the pronouns you’d like to be used, “He/Him” or “They/Them” or “She/Her” so that people can remember what you use.

Are the above sets of pronouns the only pronouns available, or are they just an illustration/example?

For those who don’t care - leave it blank. But for those who wish folks would use something particular, there it is.
Click on your name at the top right and go to “account details” then scroll down to gender.

And thanks to TomC for the suggestion.

If somebody puts suggested pronouns in that field, are moderators going to enforce use of the pronouns? I am unclear on the rules of this new policy and the 'Terms and rules' link on the bottom right does not talk about pronoun usage.

Is there nothing you can't suck the joy out of? What new policy? It's not that serious.

Just go into your account details and write whatever you want or not.

By the way, the terms and rules link just goes to some Xenforo boilerplate text. It's not IIDB's or TFT's crafted rules. I found this out recently because I had an issue with moderation and they referenced some rule here that I never heard of and I went to look for the rules and only found that one page too. But I did find their old rules at the web archive. It didn't have that alleged rule.

Terms of Service - Talk Freethought

Metaphor and others are correct. The TOU and other rules have not been posted. This was a mistake due to the forum software being new to us as well as you all. The TFT terms of service linked above is still in effect.

We will work on correcting this problem asap. My apologies.

 

[ZiprHead]

RayJ has been notified of the issue above. Hopefully he will attend to it soon but right now he's probably still in bed.

Again, my apologies for this oversight.

 

[SigmatheZeta]

@ZiprHead I was under the impression that no policy had been created, but if the new function was intended to have a policy associated with it, then I see it as a package deal.

 

[ZiprHead]

@ZiprHead I was under the impression that no policy had been created, but if the new function was intended to have a policy associated with it, then I see it as a package deal.

No. No policy has been created concerning the gender field.

 

[TomC]

Would describing oneself as "faggot" be a problem? Perhaps a little to thorough and honest?

Is "faggot" a gender?

No. It's gender+

I have a very gendered screen name. Anybody sufficiently familiar with the language spoken on IIDB to communicate will know that much about me.

That's not true of all posters. You and Ziprhead have so much in common.

Adding "faggot" would just be strong evidence that I'm also gay, really out, and kinda mouthy without much regard for decorum.

It seems to me that that belongs in a 'sexual orientation' field, not a 'gender' field. But then, perhaps that's because I know what I and most people mean by sexual orientation, but I don't know what iidb means, or shall decide to mean, by 'gender'.

I am trying to get clarity around this field and whether iidb has introduced new rules of engagement.

Honestly, when I made the suggestion, I didn't expect it to become a venue for performance art.

I don't mean it to be performance art. I mean I have been sanctioned by iidb for violating terms of use before, even though I do not believe I violated them as they were explained to me.

I can't find the 'terms of use' for the board (was it displayed only when I signed up, in 2007??)

If the ToU are somewhere, can a moderator please link to them?

What I meant by "performance art" was stuff like "old fart" and "here". I know I kinda started it with "faggot". But I really don't see what's complex about it. Sigma made a preference clear. You could too. The poster I was thinking of, specifically, was Elixir. Ungendered screen name, and I couldn't recall a post making his gender clear.
Usually, in real life, the cues about polite pronouns are clear. I could be chatting with six footer with linebacker shoulders and a tight waist. But if they're wearing lipstick and a dress, I use female pronouns. It might be obvious that Andrea was born Andrew, but it doesn't matter to me. Politeness isn't usually at all difficult on this subject. The internet is different, due to lack of such cues.

At the risk of being too honest, your inability to grasp this simple concept does look like a performance though. "How mean can I be without breaking a rule?" "How socially backwards can I pretend to be without getting spanked by the staff?" It really does look like a performance, at least to me.
Tom

 

[Worldtraveller]

I think this change and thread is going to make Metaphor's head explode.

So. Worth it just for that.

Cheers.

 

[Politesse]

Would describing oneself as "faggot" be a problem? Perhaps a little to thorough and honest?

Is "faggot" a gender?

No. It's gender+

I have a very gendered screen name. Anybody sufficiently familiar with the language spoken on IIDB to communicate will know that much about me.

That's not true of all posters. You and Ziprhead have so much in common.

Adding "faggot" would just be strong evidence that I'm also gay, really out, and kinda mouthy without much regard for decorum.

It seems to me that that belongs in a 'sexual orientation' field, not a 'gender' field. But then, perhaps that's because I know what I and most people mean by sexual orientation, but I don't know what iidb means, or shall decide to mean, by 'gender'.

I am trying to get clarity around this field and whether iidb has introduced new rules of engagement.

Honestly, when I made the suggestion, I didn't expect it to become a venue for performance art.

I don't mean it to be performance art. I mean I have been sanctioned by iidb for violating terms of use before, even though I do not believe I violated them as they were explained to me.

I can't find the 'terms of use' for the board (was it displayed only when I signed up, in 2007??)

If the ToU are somewhere, can a moderator please link to them?

What I meant by "performance art" was stuff like "old fart" and "here". I know I kinda started it with "faggot". But I really don't see what's complex about it. Sigma made a preference clear. You could too. The poster I was thinking of, specifically, was Elixir. Ungendered screen name, and I couldn't recall a post making his gender clear.
Usually, in real life, the cues about polite pronouns are clear. I could be chatting with six footer with linebacker shoulders and a tight waist. But if they're wearing lipstick and a dress, I use female pronouns. It might be obvious that Andrea was born Andrew, but it doesn't matter to me. Politeness isn't usually at all difficult on this subject. The internet is different, due to lack of such cues.

At the risk of being too honest, your inability to grasp this simple concept does look like a performance though. "How mean can I be without breaking a rule?" "How socially backwards can I pretend to be without getting spanked by the staff?" It really does look like a performance, at least to me.
Tom

Tom, I think you are making a good point, and I definitely think you have Metaphor's motivations pretty well pegged here.

But I also think that vague or unstated policy invites such scuffles.

 

[TomC]

But I also think that vague or unstated policy invites such scuffles.

What policy?

The option of making one's gender clear, if one cares enough, became available. There's no policy changes.
I'd discuss a difference of opinion you and Jarhyn and I had awhile back. But I know that would be against the rules, so I won't.

Maybe the problem is that now posters can be clear, more like in real life? Or remain vague if It suits them.
I dunno.

Really, I'd be sorry I ever brought this subject up if it weren't more amusing than many of the political forum threads.
Tom

 

[Keith&Co.]

For example, ZiprHead already has 'Old Fart' in his gender field. I believe some people would find that an offensive mockery of the idea of gender identity.

Well, it certainly isn't taking the 'idea of gender identity' too seriously.
It may be mockery. But, mocking the idea? Or the idea that it's rigid? Or the idea that it matters? Or the idea that it matters online?

So much to mock, so little opportunity...

As to offensive, that i cannot help you with. That's an internal decision on 'some people's' part. Not necessarily connected to the poster. I mean, on one board, the moderator determined i was a lesbian from my posts, and they were offended by my disregard of God's plan for women. They were further offended that i was not upset by their being offended. None of which was my intent, nor my problem.

 

[bilby]

An' ye be not a cunt, do what ye will shall be the whole of the law.

 

[Metaphor]

At the risk of being too honest, your inability to grasp this simple concept does look like a performance though. "How mean can I be without breaking a rule?"

I have explained, more than once, why I do not use pronouns to be 'mean'. But enquiring what the rules are is not a signal that you want to break them; it's a signal that you want to know what they are.

"How socially backwards can I pretend to be without getting spanked by the staff?" It really does look like a performance, at least to me.
Tom

Wishing to comply with rules is not a performance. The new Terms of Use still do not address my questions, and I have to say I do not find it helpful that you are mocking my requests for clarity.

 

[Jarhyn]

@ZiprHead I was under the impression that no policy had been created, but if the new function was intended to have a policy associated with it, then I see it as a package deal.

On TFT, there was a policy of not misgendering members.

Any member here now that was here then would be aware of this and I cannot imagine any of them seriously expected that to evaporate.

I find it stretching credulity to it's limits to pretend for even a moment that any of the longer members here would not be aware of what such a feature as may allow the specifics up front of pronouns, which would imply behavioral expectations more up front with respect to the other policy.

As to what it means for me, well, it means that I'd rather people not gender me, or box me up with others in this way, and talk to me rather than about me when possible; when I would likely agree that direct address is inappropriate (and I can take first in good faith the competence of the indirect address), it is entirely attainable to do so without pronouns and would prefer this.

Generally, I will use "him" for myself out of pure lexical momentum. It's going to take a few more years to adjust that behavior, especially going forward with transition, as I come out of that closet. And I cannot take too much issue with it in the world seeing as how I have a massive beard and all, and the world has momentum same as me.

 

[Metaphor]

I think this change and thread is going to make Metaphor's head explode.

So. Worth it just for that.

Cheers.

I regret to inform you my head remains quite unexploded.

 

[SigmatheZeta]

@ZiprHead I was under the impression that no policy had been created, but if the new function was intended to have a policy associated with it, then I see it as a package deal.

On TFT, there was a policy of not misgendering members.

Any member here now that was here then would be aware of this and I cannot imagine any of them seriously expected that to evaporate.

I find it stretching credulity to it's limits to pretend for even a moment that any of the longer members here would not be aware of what such a feature as may allow the specifics up front of pronouns, which would imply behavioral expectations more up front with respect to the other policy.

As to what it means for me, well, it means that I'd rather people not gender me, or box me up with others in this way, and talk to me rather than about me when possible; when I would likely agree that direct address is inappropriate (and I can take first in good faith the competence of the indirect address), it is entirely attainable to do so without pronouns and would prefer this.

Generally, I will use "him" for myself out of pure lexical momentum. It's going to take a few more years to adjust that behavior, especially going forward with transition, as I come out of that closet. And I cannot take too much issue with it in the world seeing as how I have a massive beard and all, and the world has momentum same as me.

There is a policy against misgendering people? Gee, that pretty much nixes my policy of misgendering people back cheekily.

I do that all the time at the drug store. They hand me my refills of spironolactone and estradiol and "sir" me and "Mr." me, and I misgender them right back with an absolutely polite and friendly smile on my face. It's the best gag ever. They pause to do some mental calculus, and then it hits them.

I tend to use the word "they" more often than most people do.

 

[Jarhyn]

@ZiprHead I was under the impression that no policy had been created, but if the new function was intended to have a policy associated with it, then I see it as a package deal.

On TFT, there was a policy of not misgendering members.

Any member here now that was here then would be aware of this and I cannot imagine any of them seriously expected that to evaporate.

I find it stretching credulity to it's limits to pretend for even a moment that any of the longer members here would not be aware of what such a feature as may allow the specifics up front of pronouns, which would imply behavioral expectations more up front with respect to the other policy.

As to what it means for me, well, it means that I'd rather people not gender me, or box me up with others in this way, and talk to me rather than about me when possible; when I would likely agree that direct address is inappropriate (and I can take first in good faith the competence of the indirect address), it is entirely attainable to do so without pronouns and would prefer this.

Generally, I will use "him" for myself out of pure lexical momentum. It's going to take a few more years to adjust that behavior, especially going forward with transition, as I come out of that closet. And I cannot take too much issue with it in the world seeing as how I have a massive beard and all, and the world has momentum same as me.

There is a policy against misgendering people? Gee, that pretty much nixes my policy of misgendering people back cheekily.

I do that all the time at the drug store. They hand me my refills of spironolactone and estradiol and "sir" me and "Mr." me, and I misgender them right back with an absolutely polite and friendly smile on my face. It's the best gag ever. They pause to do some mental calculus, and then it hits them.

I tend to use the word "they" more often than most people do.

Was, on the old boards. It was more the portions on goading and harassment that implied this behavior was transgressive.

It originated in the use of misgendering through neopronoun-as-slur.

In many ways, though, people misconstrue language when they think about pronoun use as not being done to be mean, but to be "accurate".

"Accurate" is just Dog-Whistle for "mean, while sailing down a river in Egypt"

People do not use in polite company use pronouns to be accurate, as if being "inaccurate" with pronouns ever hurt more than being "inaccurate with respect to the person being spoken to".

People DO use pronouns to reference people in a respectful way that effectively indicates who is being discussed.

So putting some other thing in place of the social function of a social convention is completely missing the point.

 

[SigmatheZeta]

@ZiprHead I was under the impression that no policy had been created, but if the new function was intended to have a policy associated with it, then I see it as a package deal.

On TFT, there was a policy of not misgendering members.

Any member here now that was here then would be aware of this and I cannot imagine any of them seriously expected that to evaporate.

I find it stretching credulity to it's limits to pretend for even a moment that any of the longer members here would not be aware of what such a feature as may allow the specifics up front of pronouns, which would imply behavioral expectations more up front with respect to the other policy.

As to what it means for me, well, it means that I'd rather people not gender me, or box me up with others in this way, and talk to me rather than about me when possible; when I would likely agree that direct address is inappropriate (and I can take first in good faith the competence of the indirect address), it is entirely attainable to do so without pronouns and would prefer this.

Generally, I will use "him" for myself out of pure lexical momentum. It's going to take a few more years to adjust that behavior, especially going forward with transition, as I come out of that closet. And I cannot take too much issue with it in the world seeing as how I have a massive beard and all, and the world has momentum same as me.

There is a policy against misgendering people? Gee, that pretty much nixes my policy of misgendering people back cheekily.

I do that all the time at the drug store. They hand me my refills of spironolactone and estradiol and "sir" me and "Mr." me, and I misgender them right back with an absolutely polite and friendly smile on my face. It's the best gag ever. They pause to do some mental calculus, and then it hits them.

I tend to use the word "they" more often than most people do.

Was, on the old boards. It was more the portions on goading and harassment that implied this behavior was transgressive.

It originated in the use of misgendering through neopronoun-as-slur.

Srsly, I just don't get that. The neo-pronouns are actually a cool idea. If the young generation can succeed at formalizing them into a more coherent system, then I think that they might be beneficial to society. We are not quite there, yet, but that's no reason to hate.

 

[Jarhyn]

@ZiprHead I was under the impression that no policy had been created, but if the new function was intended to have a policy associated with it, then I see it as a package deal.

On TFT, there was a policy of not misgendering members.

Any member here now that was here then would be aware of this and I cannot imagine any of them seriously expected that to evaporate.

I find it stretching credulity to it's limits to pretend for even a moment that any of the longer members here would not be aware of what such a feature as may allow the specifics up front of pronouns, which would imply behavioral expectations more up front with respect to the other policy.

As to what it means for me, well, it means that I'd rather people not gender me, or box me up with others in this way, and talk to me rather than about me when possible; when I would likely agree that direct address is inappropriate (and I can take first in good faith the competence of the indirect address), it is entirely attainable to do so without pronouns and would prefer this.

Generally, I will use "him" for myself out of pure lexical momentum. It's going to take a few more years to adjust that behavior, especially going forward with transition, as I come out of that closet. And I cannot take too much issue with it in the world seeing as how I have a massive beard and all, and the world has momentum same as me.

There is a policy against misgendering people? Gee, that pretty much nixes my policy of misgendering people back cheekily.

I do that all the time at the drug store. They hand me my refills of spironolactone and estradiol and "sir" me and "Mr." me, and I misgender them right back with an absolutely polite and friendly smile on my face. It's the best gag ever. They pause to do some mental calculus, and then it hits them.

I tend to use the word "they" more often than most people do.

Was, on the old boards. It was more the portions on goading and harassment that implied this behavior was transgressive.

It originated in the use of misgendering through neopronoun-as-slur.

Srsly, I just don't get that. The neo-pronouns are actually a cool idea. If the young generation can succeed at formalizing them into a more coherent system, then I think that they might be beneficial to society. We are not quite there, yet, but that's no reason to hate.

Fools mock that which they cannot understand.

 

[TomC]

Srsly, I just don't get that. The neo-pronouns are actually a cool idea. If the young generation can succeed at formalizing them into a more coherent system, then I think that they might be beneficial to society. We are not quite there, yet, but that's no reason to hate.

It gets complicated.

Referring to a public figure with a gender neutral pronoun, "xhe", is an actionable slur. Referring to a public figure as an "orange faced baboon" is not.

One of the more civil forums I've ever been a member of only had one rule, "Don't be a jerk."
Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

Srsly, I just don't get that. The neo-pronouns are actually a cool idea. If the young generation can succeed at formalizing them into a more coherent system, then I think that they might be beneficial to society. We are not quite there, yet, but that's no reason to hate.

It gets complicated.

Referring to a public figure with a gender neutral pronoun, "xhe", is an actionable slur. Referring to a public figure as an "orange faced baboon" is not.

One of the more civil forums I've ever been a member of only had one rule, "Don't be a jerk."
Tom

Referring to someone with a special gender-specific pronoun (xhe is not neutral!) When they are not, so as to ridicule the identity they do have is, in fact, slurring.

Certain people in fact choose to smear their face with orange paint and act like baboons.

 

[TomC]

Srsly, I just don't get that. The neo-pronouns are actually a cool idea. If the young generation can succeed at formalizing them into a more coherent system, then I think that they might be beneficial to society. We are not quite there, yet, but that's no reason to hate.

It gets complicated.

Referring to a public figure with a gender neutral pronoun, "xhe", is an actionable slur. Referring to a public figure as an "orange faced baboon" is not.

One of the more civil forums I've ever been a member of only had one rule, "Don't be a jerk."
Tom

Referring to someone with a special gender-specific pronoun (xhe is not neutral!) When they are not, so as to ridicule the identity they do have is, in fact, slurring.

Certain people in fact choose to smear their face with orange paint and act like baboons.

I'm sure you believe that.

Bless Your Heart.
Tom