Good news in the pronoun wars: $400k payout for professor

[Toni]

I think you should be required to use the lady's room instead of the men's room since you are sexually attracted to men.

Okay, you are completely free to think that. You clearly don't understand how sexed toilets work, and I'm not sure the ladies would be okay with your proposal, but you are free to propose it. And you are free to implement it in your pay toilet business if you want.

You'll have no problem using the facilities in the ladies. It's the other way around that doesn't work too well.

You over estimate the tolerance of ladies and their adherence to behavior and comportment typically associated with the word lady.

I'm talking about mechanically. Ladies rooms are full of toilets. Guys have no problem using toilets, it's what we usually have at home.

Ladies generally aren't going to be able to make much use of a urinal.

I am familiar with the prevalence of urinalysis in men’s restrooms.

That said: I said what I said.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I am attacking the opinions you have posted.

You made it very clear that you consider the use of pronouns other than the preferred ones rude. You also made it clear that your usage of the pronoun 'it' when referring to me, was not an instance of your being rude unintentionally. It seems rather obvious that you were being rude deliberately.

You generally ignore what I post.

That is not true. And it is weird that you say that, because I have been trying repeatedly to try to get you to engage. If you were to explain your position better, I would be able to address it better. But you continue to fail to address my questions, misrepresent what I say, put words into my keyboard, etc.

So, I'll ask again, "Why do you think that I'm part of the 'pronoun police', while you and Metaphor, Sigmathezeta, etc. aren't?

No, you are not asking again. You never asked that before. The reason I thought you were part of the pronoun police is precisely the reason I stated in the post you quoted 4 lines above asking the question. The reason is that you post moral condemnations of those who do not use pronouns in the way you like - allegedly matching the preferences of the person people are speaking about, but not in all cases, so your standards are unclear.

Let me further unpack: not only you make your moral condemnation loud and clear, but you accompany it with false and disparaging accusations about the intentions of those who use pronouns in a way that differs from whatever it is you want. And those are accusations that you should not believe are true.

So, those are the reasons I believed that you are part of the pronoun police. However, I may have misunderstood the use of the expression 'pronoun police' in this context, so I was asking.

As for me, well I am not part of the pronoun police because I do not do any of the above, nor do I take any other coercive action against people who use their own preferred pronouns (coercion =\= force; using force or the threat of force is a way of coercing, but there are forms of coercion that do not involve force, for example public condemnations, false accusations, etc., that do not involve threats of force, but involve explicit or implicit threats of other negative social consequences if a person fails to comply).

As for [removed fr consistency] etc., I never said anything about whether I thought they were part of the pronoun police. I do not even know who "etc." is, so your question is both odd and another instance of attributing claims or beliefs to me that you have no good reason to suspect I have. [removed for consistency]

All that aside, if you read this and my other posts carefully, you would notice that I do address what you say in your replies to me, as long as it has some relevance to the matter being discussed, and even some things that do not have any. Now let me direct you again to this post. Have you considered my points there? Do you have answers?

 

[Trausti]

My adjectives are "super-smart" and "sexy." Please respect my identity when referring to super-smart sexy Trausti.

 

[barbos]

My adjectives are "super-smart" and "sexy." Please respect my identity when referring to super-smart sexy Trausti.

Damn, I did not see that coming.

 

[Bomb#20]

Why are gendered pronouns such a big deal, anyway?

Like most bizarre irregularities that give second-language learners such misery, they're hacks for working around the "seven plus or minus two" problem, that the language hardware in our brains stumbled blindly onto in the course of their endless optimization of natural languages. They serve to offload some of the language processing work from our highly limited short-term memories onto our less flexible but enormous long-term memories. At least they do when they're being used for their naturally evolved function.

IIDB has members who deliberately selected genders like , "No pls." and "Old Fart" and "agenderist". We have many members who just didn't put anything in the field at all.

It would be grammatically correct to refer to them as "it". "It" is a gender neutral singular pronoun. Why would that be a problem?

But it isn't grammatically correct. Pronouns are paired with nouns according to noun class agreement rules, and gender agreement is just a subset of noun class agreement. People aren't in the same noun class as inanimate objects. "It" might arguably satisfy gender agreement but it doesn't satisfy animacy agreement. English's conventional gender neutral singular animate pronoun is "he or she".

(Which isn't to say I'd have any objection to being called "it". It's a free country. Besides which, bombs are inanimate objects and if anyone calls me "it" I'll take it as a tribute to the brilliance of John Carpenter and Dark Star. )

 

[barbos]

Like most bizarre irregularities that give second-language learners such misery

What are you talking about?
I have never had any misery with english pronouns.
In fact, compared to russian and german you really have nothing.

 

[Bomb#20]

Like most bizarre irregularities that give second-language learners such misery

What are you talking about?
I have never had any misery with english pronouns.
In fact, compared to russian and german you really have nothing.

Maybe not, but my Japanese teacher made he/she mistakes on a regular basis.

One of the odd quirks of the English gender system that distinguishes it from typical IE languages is that while their gender systems were optimized to go easy on the memories of their native speakers, English's was optimized to go easy on the memories of foreigners. (Specifically, Frenchmen.) So no surprise it's a piece of cake for a Russian.

 

[Metaphor]

Sex is binary and cannot change in mammals. This is not a faith statement but a biological fact.

"Gender identity" can be anything because it is a thought in a person's head. I have no interest in anybody's "gender identity", any more than I have an interest in hearing them evaluate their own personality.

It is a biological fact that gender identity is determined by the brain. That you use scare quotes, or call it just thought, and refer to it as a religion, is you denying biological reality and facts.

I use scare quotes for "gender identity" because I don't know what people mean when they say it. When they do define it, it is often circular.

"Gender identity" is a thought in a person's head. That it is determined by the brain is no more to the point than that all thoughts are determined by the brain.

That you are a gay man is also determined by the thoughts in your head. By your standards we should not have to respect that.

What on earth makes you think I want you to "respect" it? What demands do I make of your speech? Am I forcing you to utter things you do not believe? If so, how?

Gay people have demanded all sorts of things. They don't want to be derisively called faggot or queer. They demanded the right to marry their same sex. They demanded the right to join military service. They demanded to be treated differently than previously in many ways, housing, employment, etc..

Gay people did not demand you call them heterosexual and pretend to believe it.

 

[barbos]

Like most bizarre irregularities that give second-language learners such misery

What are you talking about?
I have never had any misery with english pronouns.
In fact, compared to russian and german you really have nothing.

Maybe not, but my Japanese teacher made he/she mistakes on a regular basis.

One of the odd quirks of the English gender system that distinguishes it from typical IE languages is that while their gender systems were optimized to go easy on the memories of their native speakers, English's was optimized to go easy on the memories of foreigners. (Specifically, Frenchmen.) So no surprise it's a piece of cake for a Russian.

As far as german, russian and slavic in general concerned, english does not have gender system. Having gendered pronouns does not qualify for a system.
Russian and german have gendered pronouns, and verbs conjugated according to gender of the subject. That's what I call a system. having he/she is not a system.

 

[Metaphor]

It is a bit of a mystery why some people in the civilian world want to belittle and intimidate others by using inappropriate pronouns.

It is a bit of a mystery why you think people 'in the civilian world' want to do that. You are begging the question.

Do you know why some people express hostility about using the pronoun a particular person prefers?

Yes: because it is trying to compel somebody's speech, and, in some cases, forcing them to say things they do not believe.

Is there some altruistic motive behind this kind of behavior?

It depends on what you mean by "altruism". For example, when black people fought for civil rights in America in the 1960s, they surely stood to gain personally, but other people also stood to gain.

 

[Bomb#20]

But here you aren't using the word in the sense that pronoun-war activists generally use it.

[removed]

Fair enough. By pronoun-war activists, I was referring to the pronoun-police. I take your point that the pronoun-anarchists also qualify as pronoun-war activists; but then, they're rarely the ones using the word "misgendering".

As far as I can tell, TomC is part of the pronoun-police, given his moral condemnation of those who do not use pronouns in a way that matches the preferences of the person they are speaking about. Or by 'pronouns police' are you talking about those who would use force or the threat of force (passing laws, etc.) only, leaving aside public judgments of condemnation? (or some other group of activists?)

There's a spectrum of policing-like behavior. Criticizing somebody for not following your rules is a little policish; being deliberately rude to him over it is policier; trumping up evil motivations for him is policier still; and supporting violence or governmental coercion is the policiest. TomC appears to be fairly far along that spectrum, though not as far along as some folks on IIDB are. I didn't mean to imply that he doesn't use "misgendering" in its have-you-stopped-beating-your-wife propaganda sense as any typical pronoun-policeman would; he used it exactly that way in post #67. When I said he wasn't using the word in that sense I was referring only to how he used it in post #70. Sorry to have been unclear.

 

[Metaphor]

Tom

Tom, if a student demanded that the teacher refer to them using 'bug/bugself' pronouns, is it incumbent on the teacher to do so in order to be be 'considerate' and 'civil'?

No.
Tom

Okay. So, do you restrict your 'civil' and 'polite' pronoun requirements to 'he' 'she', and 'they'? If so, why did courtesy stop at those pronouns? If they don't stop at those pronouns, where do they stop?

I'm sure you are aware that I don't have to make any of this up. Among the list of pronouns I have seen demanded include 'bug/bugself' 'tree/treeself' 'it/its' 'clown/clownself' 'xe/xem/xirs'.

Do you believe teachers are required to remember the pronouns of the gender fluid, which can change from day to day, in order to be 'civil' and 'considerate'?

Do you believe that teachers are required to ratio-mix pronouns, such as 'she' and 'they', in the correct ration, in order to be 'civil' and 'considerate'?

I have seen a bio that says 'X does not use pronouns'. Of course, what that actually meant was 'X demands that other people do not use pronouns for her' (I use "her" because she was obviously an adult human female). Precisely how this was supposed to work in practice I am sure I don't know. When referencing X, should teachers and civil and considerate people be required to refrain from all pronoun usage?

TomC, I'm still waiting for your response to this.

 

[Jarhyn]

Some people get into a rather idiotic mode of thought in which they confuse being chastised socially with being policed.

Let's imagine when someone leaves their shopping cart out, behind someone else's vehicle: the other person may shout at you. They may even swear at you and call you an inconsiderate lump of shit.

But it is not policing unless they have power over you to actually make you.

See, this is the real goal, to generate a reality where other people do not present social disapproval of their actions, no matter how onerous and despicable those actions are.

They seek tolerance for their intolerance.

We have no obligation to extend a quiet life without social conflict to those who generate unnecessary avoidable situations that are burdensome and shitty for those around them.

It is not so burdensome and shitty to call your neighbor "she". You call your other neighbor "she" and "her" and you know exactly as much about them as you do the neighbor on the other side for whom you deny this. Both neighbors are about equally (un)likely to fuck you.

When you are policed, if you don't listen, you have a very bad day.

When you are chastised socially, if you don't listen, you might get an earful but you CAN just walk away.

Such claims of "policing" are really just a bad faith attempt to shut down valid criticism

 

[Angra Mainyu]

But it is not policing unless they have power over you to actually make you.

The word 'police' has more than one usage in English. Terms like 'grammar police', 'word police', etc., are in use. One can ask for clarification when something is not clear, as done in this thread, and that's it. No problem.

And there is more than one way of coercing. Making false and unwarranted accusations that seriously harm the reputation of a person is a way of coercing, though it is generally coercive to a lesser degree than the use or credible threat of use of force.

It is not so burdensome and shitty to call your neighbor "she".

Burdensome to whom?
To some, it is about as burdensome as to say that your neighbor speaks in tongues, imbued by the power of the holy ghost. Or as burdensome as promoting a rising religion one disagrees with.
To some, it's the burden of not being able to pull it off, given that it's a intuitive grammar error.

But usually they still use the word their neighbor prefers, often to avoid an unjust attack against them. That, however, does not make their use of their own preferred pronouns when talking about other people, in any way wrongful. Perhaps they just want to speak their own language, and/or use the linguistic classifications that pick the properties that they, the speakers prefer to talk about, rather than those that Woke believers demand that they talk about.

Such claims of "policing" are really just a bad faith attempt to shut down valid criticism

No, that is just you making up a false accusations against your opponents. The worst part, however, is not that it is false, but that it is unwarranted - i.e., you should not believe it is true, on the basis of the evidence available to you. Further, you ought to believe it is false. If it were false but warranted, it would be a bad thing that you make the accusation, but not your fault. However, there is no reasonable reading of your opponents' posts that would warrant such a claim.

 

[SigmatheZeta]

[removed for consistency]

 

[Angra Mainyu]

But here you aren't using the word in the sense that pronoun-war activists generally use it.

[removed]

Fair enough. By pronoun-war activists, I was referring to the pronoun-police. I take your point that the pronoun-anarchists also qualify as pronoun-war activists; but then, they're rarely the ones using the word "misgendering".

As far as I can tell, TomC is part of the pronoun-police, given his moral condemnation of those who do not use pronouns in a way that matches the preferences of the person they are speaking about. Or by 'pronouns police' are you talking about those who would use force or the threat of force (passing laws, etc.) only, leaving aside public judgments of condemnation? (or some other group of activists?)

There's a spectrum of policing-like behavior. Criticizing somebody for not following your rules is a little policish; being deliberately rude to him over it is policier; trumping up evil motivations for him is policier still; and supporting violence or governmental coercion is the policiest. TomC appears to be fairly far along that spectrum, though not as far along as some folks on IIDB are. I didn't mean to imply that he doesn't use "misgendering" in its have-you-stopped-beating-your-wife propaganda sense as any typical pronoun-policeman would; he used it exactly that way in post #67. When I said he wasn't using the word in that sense I was referring only to how he used it in post #70. Sorry to have been unclear.

No problem, and it seems I was unclear. I realized you were referring only to post#70. I was asking about TomC's classification because I didn't understand the 'pronoun-anarchists' part, but now I think I do.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

[removed for consistency]

 

[ZiprHead]

Sex is binary and cannot change in mammals. This is not a faith statement but a biological fact.

"Gender identity" can be anything because it is a thought in a person's head. I have no interest in anybody's "gender identity", any more than I have an interest in hearing them evaluate their own personality.

It is a biological fact that gender identity is determined by the brain. That you use scare quotes, or call it just thought, and refer to it as a religion, is you denying biological reality and facts.

I use scare quotes for "gender identity" because I don't know what people mean when they say it. When they do define it, it is often circular.

"Gender identity" is a thought in a person's head. That it is determined by the brain is no more to the point than that all thoughts are determined by the brain.

That you are a gay man is also determined by the thoughts in your head. By your standards we should not have to respect that.

What on earth makes you think I want you to "respect" it? What demands do I make of your speech? Am I forcing you to utter things you do not believe? If so, how?

Gay people have demanded all sorts of things. They don't want to be derisively called faggot or queer. They demanded the right to marry their same sex. They demanded the right to join military service. They demanded to be treated differently than previously in many ways, housing, employment, etc..

Gay people did not demand you call them heterosexual and pretend to believe it.

Nothing in that addresses my comment.

 

[Jarhyn]

this thread (... the thread was closed)

 

[TomC]

Christians often ask atheists to join them in group prayer; and they often regard refusal as rude and mean. Their hurt feelings are every bit as real as the hurt feelings of trans people who aren't given the words they crave. Do you think then that we're being rude and mean when we decline to pray with Christians?

Speaking for myself,

I've been asked innumerable times to join some Christians in prayer. Near always, I did. I can't remember a time I didn't.
It was their primitive way of being inclusive, I support inclusiveness as a concept, so I did it.
Tom