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

[laughing dog]

Why that false dichotomy? Why is there a moral obligation on me to participate in somebody's fantasy that their pronouns should refer to their 'gender' and not their sex, or that they literally are (or can become) a sex that they are not?ish to make it.

I think we are both on the same page here - neither of us has a clue what you are on about. The pronoun refers to the person's sex or their gender. If that person wishes their gender to take precedence over their gender, then in my view, it is a kindness to do so.Apparently, you feel differently. You can choose to be polite/kind or not. It appears to me that you are going to great lengths to justify the latter choice of being unkind or being an ass. The justification does not alter the judgment.


This new format is hell for me to edit. I never claimed that pronouns only referred to gender. Pronouns refer to sex or to gender depending on the context.

 

[Gospel]

Why stop at animals? What about insects?

 

[Metaphor]

Why that false dichotomy? Why is there a moral obligation on me to participate in somebody's fantasy that their pronouns should refer to their 'gender' and not their sex, or that they literally are (or can become) a sex that they are not?ish to make it.

I think we are both on the same page here - neither of us has a clue what you are on about. The pronoun refers to the person's sex or their gender.

That a pronoun refers to a person's gender (whatever that is) is a new development. TomC insists that it has always referred to gender and not sex, a claim I find astonishing, illogical, and false.

In animals, which includes humans, I use pronouns to refer to sex. This is still the norm all over the English speaking world, as can be attested to the sexed pronouns used for human babies, who do not have a 'gender identity'.

If that person wishes their gender to take precedence over their gender, then in my view, it is a kindness to do so.Apparently, you feel differently. You can choose to be polite/kind or not. It appears to me that you are going to great lengths to justify the latter choice of being unkind or being an ass. The justification does not alter the judgment.

It is a kindness and a polite fiction for me to refer to somebody with pronouns that conflict with their sex. I have done so in the past and probably will do so in the future. But it does not make an 'ass' for deciding it is not a fiction I can indulge in every situation, and especially in situations where a person's gender identity is being treated as if it were their sex (such as with all transwomen athletes competing against women).

This new format is hell for me to edit. I never claimed that pronouns only referred to gender. Pronouns refer to sex or to gender depending on the context.

My operating context is that pronouns always refer to gender in non-animal objects, and they always refer to sex in animals (in English).

Some activists and their supporters demand that the rules of engagement be changed, and that pronouns now refer to a person's 'gender' when that person has decided that's what they want (and some jurisdictions use the force of law to punish people who do not or cannot conform to this change). It is one thing to demand this change. It is another to assume that people who use pronouns to refer to sex are mean or thoughtless, and it is another again to gaslight people into thinking it was always thus.

 

[Metaphor]

Why stop at animals? What about insects?

If this is a joke, I freely confess I don't get it.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Ships are called 'she', because in English, ships have the gender 'female'.

Actually, no. Sorry. The English language does not gender the noun, 'ship.' That's a nautical tradition, not a language rule.

 

[TomC]

That a pronoun refers to a person's gender (whatever that is) is a new development. TomC insists that it has always referred to gender and not sex, a claim I find astonishing, illogical, and false.

I'm confident that I didn't say that.
I agree that distinguishing between sex and gender is an extremely new development. That's the problem.

For virtually all of human history, sex and gender were necessarily and inextricably linked. In the rest of the animal world they still are. Our language was formed, with all its irrational bits, before this distinction was really possible. Why do people get testy over misgendering pronouns? Why is using the plural "they", referring to an individual, preferable to the singular "it"? Why are vehicles like ships and cars usually gendered female?

I dunno. But people's feelings often hinge on such small details, when it comes to their self-esteem and self-image. Speaking for myself, I'd be annoyed if someone misgendered me. Irrational, but I would be. If I thought it was accidental, like here on the internet, I'd probably correct them and forget about it. That doesn't happen in real life, I'm way over 6' tall and have had a beard since I was a teenager. In real life, it's always been a slam on my orientation.

TLDR, it's a new issue. There's lots of kinks to work out. I still think cis-females should have a sports league that's a level playing field. I don't think females should be forced to undress around males. But just being polite to the people around you, when sex and gender don't matter(which is almost always), will go a long ways towards maintaining a civil society while adjusting to the changes. That's why I wondered about your policy questions. Politely gendered pronouns and such seems like a total no brainer.
Tom

 

[TomC]

Ships are called 'she', because in English, ships have the gender 'female'.

Actually, no. Sorry. The English language does not gender the noun, 'ship.' That's a nautical tradition, not a language rule.

Probably because the traditional male crew would rather "swab her decks", rather than "his". Or go for a cruise on "her", rather than "him".

Tom

 

[Patooka]

Actually, no. Sorry. The English language does not gender the noun, 'ship.' That's a nautical tradition, not a language rule.

Ship can also be used as a verb. It's fluid like that. Maybe we should find the etymology of the word and if it was used as a verb first, that's how we must use it from now on otherwise it will be fucking anarchy.

 

[Metaphor]

Ships are called 'she', because in English, ships have the gender 'female'.

Actually, no. Sorry. The English language does not gender the noun, 'ship.' That's a nautical tradition, not a language rule.

Yes, it does. English doesn't decline nouns by gender so it hardly matters gramatically, but common usage has ships as 'she' - gendered female.

 

[Metaphor]

Ships are called 'she', because in English, ships have the gender 'female'.

Actually, no. Sorry. The English language does not gender the noun, 'ship.' That's a nautical tradition, not a language rule.

Probably because the traditional male crew would rather "swab her decks", rather than "his". Or go for a cruise on "her", rather than "him".

Tom

Some of the male crew, I'm sure. Though I hear--and this might just be a rumour--there was some sodomy at sea.

 

[Metaphor]

That a pronoun refers to a person's gender (whatever that is) is a new development. TomC insists that it has always referred to gender and not sex, a claim I find astonishing, illogical, and false.

I'm confident that I didn't say that.
I agree that distinguishing between sex and gender is an extremely new development. That's the problem.

Really? What problem does identifying 'gender' solve?

For virtually all of human history, sex and gender were necessarily and inextricably linked. In the rest of the animal world they still are. Our language was formed, with all its irrational bits, before this distinction was really possible. Why do people get testy over misgendering pronouns? Why is using the plural "they", referring to an individual, preferable to the singular "it"? Why are vehicles like ships and cars usually gendered female?

Why is it irrational to have pronouns refer to sex? Why is having pronouns instead refer to 'gender' better or more rational?

I dunno. But people's feelings often hinge on such small details, when it comes to their self-esteem and self-image. Speaking for myself, I'd be annoyed if someone misgendered me. Irrational, but I would be. If I thought it was accidental, like here on the internet, I'd probably correct them and forget about it. That doesn't happen in real life, I'm way over 6' tall and have had a beard since I was a teenager.

How strange. When you say you are way over 6' tall and have a beard, you are not describing your gender. You are describing that you look male. You look typically, or even exaggeratedly, male. So are we to assume that you would be upset because you obviously look male but somebody thought you looked female? They would be mis-sexing you, not 'misgendering' you.

In real life, it's always been a slam on my orientation.

TLDR, it's a new issue. There's lots of kinks to work out. I still think cis-females should have a sports league that's a level playing field. I don't think females should be forced to undress around males.

Then you are in opposition to trans activist demands.

But just being polite to the people around you, when sex and gender don't matter(which is almost always), will go a long ways towards maintaining a civil society while adjusting to the changes. That's why I wondered about your policy questions. Politely gendered pronouns and such seems like a total no brainer.
Tom

I can't think of any situation where gender matters. Where does it matter, and why?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Ships are called 'she', because in English, ships have the gender 'female'.

Actually, no. Sorry. The English language does not gender the noun, 'ship.' That's a nautical tradition, not a language rule.

Yes, it does. English doesn't decline nouns by gender so it hardly matters gramatically, but common usage has ships as 'she' - gendered female.

It's not a grammatical rule of English, though. It's common, but it's not driven by the language.

 

[Rhea]

That a pronoun refers to a person's gender (whatever that is) is a new development. TomC insists that it has always referred to gender and not sex, a claim I find astonishing, illogical, and false.

Is it, though?
Is it astonishing, illogical, and false?

All through history, the use we have used most often is based on how someone presents because we are not privvy to their genitals.

So it is almost always about gender. The gender they present with.

Hasn’t it been thus since clothes were invented?


Do you see a lot of people naked?
I don’t. I would say the vast majority of people that I interact with every day I have no idea what their sex is. No idea at all. And no need to know, either. The only thing I need to know is what to call them, not whether I can procreate with them.

I can't think of any situation where gender matters. Where does it matter, and why?

Here on the internet, where you have no possibility of having any idea what our “sex” is, and all you have to go on is the “gender” that we all present as, isn’t gender actually the only thing that matters?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

At least we "English" speakers don't have to remember the gender of every object we talk about, like those cheese eating surrender monkeys in France. Why is a car feminine and a salad is masculine?
I dunno. Maybe they like being run over by Germans who spread Capital letters all over everything.
Tom

We are still bad compared to spoken Chinese--they don't have gendered nouns in the first place other than for family words and the written only adds he/she/it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Gender means sex. Huh.
For forty years i have referred to every ship i served on as 'she/her.'
I now realize why the Franklin used to purr when we waxed the deck between her missile tubes

Note: Missile tubes. You served on ships with their holes full of dicks, of course they purred!

 

[Metaphor]

That a pronoun refers to a person's gender (whatever that is) is a new development. TomC insists that it has always referred to gender and not sex, a claim I find astonishing, illogical, and false.

Is it, though?

All through history, the use we have used most often is based on how someone presents because we are not privvy to their genitals.

Utter nonsense. The sex of people was not some sort of secret, even now. Parents freely relate the sex of their newborn children to all and sundry. Why are you so obsessed with genitalia? I know the sex of 99.9% of the people I've ever met and I've never seen their genitalia.

So it is almost always about gender. The gender they present with.

What is a gender and how does one 'present' as a gender? You appear to be making it about the clothes people wear. So, when women were not allowed to attend university, was it their sex or their gender that kept them out? If they had instead worn the costumes of men, but not pretended to be the male sex, the universities would have let them in?

Hasn’t it been thus since clothes were invented?

Hasn't what been thus? That people express something called 'gender' via the clothes they wear? So, when women wear clothing more typical of males than females, those women are expressing their male 'gender'?

Do you see a lot of people naked?
I don’t. I would say the vast majority of people that I interact with every day I have no idea what their sex is. No idea at all.

[removed] I know the sex of 99.9% of the people I've met, and it didn't rely on them being unclothed.

And no need to know, either. The only thing I need to know is what to call them, not whether I can procreate with them.

Um, okay.

I can't think of any situation where gender matters. Where does it matter, and why?

Here on the internet, where you have no possibility of having any idea what our “sex” is, and all you have to go on is the “gender” that we all present as, isn’t gender actually the only thing that matters?

No, your gender is meaningless to me. Why would I care about a thought in your head about what you think your personality is like?

 

[laughing dog]

This new format is hell for me to edit. I never claimed that pronouns only referred to gender. Pronouns refer to sex or to gender depending on the context.

My operating context is that pronouns always refer to gender in non-animal objects, and they always refer to sex in animals (in English).

Some activists and their supporters demand that the rules of engagement be changed, and that pronouns now refer to a person's 'gender' when that person has decided that's what they want (and some jurisdictions use the force of law to punish people who do not or cannot conform to this change). It is one thing to demand this change. It is another to assume that people who use pronouns to refer to sex are mean or thoughtless, and it is another again to gaslight people into thinking it was always thus.

And it is another to insist pronouns always and only refer to sex, and that people always use them to refer only to sex, so that one can be unkind or an ass.

BTW, your baby example is incredibly dumb. Most people when they encounter a baby, use a pronoun based on their perception of the baby's sex (i.e. the gender), not because they have viewed baby genitalia.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Is it, though?
Is it astonishing, illogical, and false?

All through history, the use we have used most often is based on how someone presents because we are not privvy to their genitals.

So it is almost always about gender. The gender they present with.

Whatever "gender" means, the reasoning you are using here is mistaken.

Let me give you an example: suppose Arnold is a terminator - a robot covered in human tissue, and which looks human. Then, most people would classify it as a human. However, it would be a mistaken classification, because Arnold is not in fact a human, by the meaning of the word 'human' in English. The reason for the mistaken classification is that it is based on visual information that leads people to reasonably assess Arnold has further properties - i.e., beyond those that one can observe - which make it a human. But it does not. And if people were given further information about Arnold - e.g., that it's made of metal, has a processor for brain, etc. - they would correctly classify Arnold as not a human.
When you want to assess whether pronouns referred to a person's gender, sex or something else, you need to consider whether people with such and such sex or gender would have been referred to as 'she', 'he', etc., provided that the people using those words were privy to the relevant facts.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Speaking for myself, I'd be annoyed if someone misgendered me.

Okay, and when you say that, you are thinking of say, someone saying 'TomC is a woman', right?

But imagine that there are people who speak a slightly different dialect, and use the word 'woman' to mean something else, and according to that other meaning, the assertion 'TomC is a woman' is true. Would you get annoyed by that? Suppose their usage is traditional in their community, and 'woman' picks some property they care about, and is not in any way a slur, or meant to hurt, demean, etc. In other words, they are just accurately describing you in a different dialect, using the words that pick the properties they care about, without any intention to harm. Would you be annoyed by it? Would you consider their statements instances of misgendering, as they are true statements describing you?

My point is that nearly all accusations of 'misgendering' are false: the people allegedly misgendering others are making true statements in non-Woke English. The meaning of the words in a language is given by usage. But even if some part of the population changes the way they speak, statements made in the unchanged language do not become false just because they would be so in the changed language. And many people (I'd say the vast majority, but that aside; it's enough say 20% to make it common usage) still speak in non-Woke English.

 

[Jarhyn]

It always amuses me when sophistry arises around the use of language.

Language does not dictate reality. Reality is itself and language can only at best try to align in some way to it. Reality existed exactly as it did before we started to speak of it, and will long after our words are forgotten, or perhaps written into the universe as eternally dancing spheres of iron.

Before the words were as accurate as they are today, they were less accurate and tomorrow they will, potentially, be more accurate than they are now.

But moreover, words were not meant solely to communicate what is, was, or the small ideas that only exist in our own personal, occasionally small, minds. Rather they may bring new things in from minds not our own, or talk of what may be.

One cannot say that it is erroneous to call a terminator "human" in a particular intent of "human". I much prefer the term "person", because "human" can conflate in the weak and small mind with 'homo sapiens sapiens' and be used as a cudgel against persons who are not, in fact, 'homo sapiens'.

Given this avenue for bad faith, it is certainly unwise, but still not wrong to do so. It is a common and accepted use of language, though not the bad faith conflation of use.

So then we get into pronouns: in the English language, and particularly so given the beligerence of some to neo-pronouns so as to use them as slurs, and of those same some to in bad faith reject one of the historic dual uses of 'they/their', we are pigeon-holed into 'he' and 'her'.

Of course, 'HE' is literally programmed into T1000.

In many cases you see the crocodile tears of the TEA bag (Trans-Exclusionist Asshole) over "newspeak".

You know in the book 1984, 'newspeak' was speech designed to make it impossible to express ideas that the establishment didn't like. Like making it impossible to express "person, but without reference to gender"

The options that the TEAbagger would have us have available to us do not even allow us to express "non-gendered" and "person" in the same word. The non-gendered reference available without they/them is 'it'!

And then they insist that language cannot use gender apart from sex!

Double plus ungood indeed.