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

[Metaphor]

I have explained, more than once, why I do not use pronouns to be 'mean'.

What I recall is you explaining that you prefer to use impolite pronouns because you're too scientifically pure to be civil and polite.

You recall incorrectly. In fact, I said that even though pronouns have always referred to sex in animals, I sometimes use 'preferred' pronouns as a polite fiction.

You use male gendered pronouns for trans-women because you care more about your ideology than civility. You insist that pronouns are about sex, not gender.

They are about sex.

I don't understand that.
Or maybe the problem is that I do. You prefer an uncivil society, if that means your opinions are given precedence over the feelings and concerns of people who are very different from you.

No: I prefer a rational society where people are not punished by the State for 'misgendering'. I prefer a rational society where it is acknowledged that humans cannot change sex or race merely by declaration. I prefer a society where women are not ejected from their own spaces by gender ideologues.

 

[blastula]

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.

Are you concerned about offending baboons?

No.
I'm also not concerned about offending sleazebag lawyers.
But some posters are.
Tom

I don't know what lawyer you're referring to, but I was trying to say that to insult someone with a group-based slur is an insult to the group not just the one person. So in some cases, to insult a public person with a slur is insulting a lot of other people, and is more pernicious when it's a slur of an involuntary group.

 

[TomC]

You recall incorrectly.

No I don't. You repeated yourself in this post.

They are about sex.

Pronouns aren't about sex. They're about gender. Polite use of the, rather arbitrary, language norms is about civility.

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

 

[TomC]

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.

Are you concerned about offending baboons?

No.
I'm also not concerned about offending sleazebag lawyers.
But some posters are.
Tom

I don't know what lawyer you're referring to, but I was trying to say that to insult someone with a group-based slur is an insult to the group not just the one person. So in some cases, to insult a public person with a slur is insulting a lot of other people, and is more pernicious when it's a slur of an involuntary group.

If you'd like to discuss rules and moderation I'll do it.
But you'll need to start a thread in site feedback. Here on a public forum won't work, for me.
Tom

 

[Metaphor]

You recall incorrectly.

No I don't. You repeated yourself in this post.

You recall incorrectly. I have said multiple times that I have used the polite fictions of 'preferred' pronouns for trans people (though I will never use neopronouns).

They are about sex.

Pronouns aren't about sex. They're about gender. Polite use of the, rather arbitrary, language norms is about civility.

Pronouns have always been about sex in animals. If you are making the argument that they should now be about gender, you can make the argument, but to deny the history of pronoun use is gaslighting.

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'm not interested in your imperialist rejection of languages other than English. In some languages, there are no sexed or gendered pronouns. In others, sentence structures and declensions are inextricably tied to the gender of objects.

 

[blastula]

If you'd like to discuss rules and moderation I'll do it.
But you'll need to start a thread in site feedback. Here on a public forum won't work, for me.
Tom

I didn't mention moderation at all.

 

[laughing dog]

Pronouns have always been about sex in animals.

That is untrue. Pronouns have been about the perceived sex of animals. In human animals, that can mean gender. Really, this is not rocket science.

There is no need to misrepresent history to make your argument. In fact, misrepresenting reality allows people to more readily dismiss it.

 

[Metaphor]

Pronouns have always been about sex in animals.

That is untrue. Pronouns have been about the perceived sex of animals.

It's sometimes true that humans don't really know the sex or anatomy of animals they are not familiar with, and therefore they mis-sex some animals.

In human animals, that can mean gender.

I am unable to perceive most biological males as female just because those males have thoughts in their head of being female, or even when they dress in a way more typical of women than men. I'm not doing this to be mean or nasty.

Really, this is not rocket science.

There is no need to misrepresent history to make your argument. In fact, misrepresenting reality allows people to more readily dismiss it.

I am not misrepresenting history. 'Gender' was not a term even applied to humans until (as far as I know) the 1960s. Before the 1960s, pronouns must have been referring to sex (or perceived sex, if you insist).

 

[laughing dog]

Pronouns have always been about sex in animals.

That is untrue. Pronouns have been about the perceived sex of animals.

It's sometimes true that humans don't really know the sex or anatomy of animals they are not familiar with, and therefore they mis-sex some animals.

In human animals, that can mean gender.

I am unable to perceive most biological males as female just because those males have thoughts in their head of being female, or even when they dress in a way more typical of women than men. I'm not doing this to be mean or nasty.

So? If someone knows that person X displays or thinks of themself as a particular gender, it is polite or thoughtful act to acknowledge that.
Is it mean to act otherwise? If someone deliberately misgenders a person, in my view, it is, at a minimum, a thoughtless gesture.

Really, this is not rocket science.

There is no need to misrepresent history to make your argument. In fact, misrepresenting reality allows people to more readily dismiss it.

I am not misrepresenting history. 'Gender' was not a term even applied to humans until (as far as I know) the 1960s. Before the 1960s, pronouns must have been referring to sex (or perceived sex, if you insist).

Nonsense. Throughout history there have been people who have passed themselves off as members of the opposite sex.

And if one thinks about it, if one is perceiving person X as a woman, one is likely perceiving the gender if not also the sex.

Really, this is not rocket science no matter how hard one tries to make it.

 

[Metaphor]

Pronouns have always been about sex in animals.

That is untrue. Pronouns have been about the perceived sex of animals.

It's sometimes true that humans don't really know the sex or anatomy of animals they are not familiar with, and therefore they mis-sex some animals.

In human animals, that can mean gender.

I am unable to perceive most biological males as female just because those males have thoughts in their head of being female, or even when they dress in a way more typical of women than men. I'm not doing this to be mean or nasty.

So? If someone knows that person X displays or thinks of themself as a particular gender, it is polite or thoughtful act to acknowledge that.

Why is it polite or thoughtful to acknowledge their gender, and even if it were, why do you believe that pronouns refer to gender and not sex?

I have never ever enquired about somebody's gender. It has never crossed my mind what thoughts are in a person's head about their own personality. Was I being rude my whole life by not asking about somebody's thoughts about their 'gender'?

Is it mean to act otherwise? If someone deliberately misgenders a person, in my view, it is, at a minimum, a thoughtless gesture.

I think that treating gender as if it were sex--something that appears to be necessary in order to not 'misgender' some people, is a far greater problem.

Really, this is not rocket science.

There is no need to misrepresent history to make your argument. In fact, misrepresenting reality allows people to more readily dismiss it.

I am not misrepresenting history. 'Gender' was not a term even applied to humans until (as far as I know) the 1960s. Before the 1960s, pronouns must have been referring to sex (or perceived sex, if you insist).

Nonsense. Throughout history there have been people who have passed themselves off as members of the opposite sex.

They may well have, but what of it? That people have been mistaken about somebody's sex does not mean that pronouns do not, or did not, refer to sex.

And if one thinks about it, if one is perceiving person X as a woman, one is likely perceiving the gender if not also the sex.

Really, this is not rocket science no matter how hard one tries to make it.

I have no idea what the gender of a person I'm looking at is, or whether they even have a gender. Why, if gender is something separate to sex, should I refer to somebody's gender and not their sex?

 

[laughing dog]

Pronouns have always been about sex in animals.

That is untrue. Pronouns have been about the perceived sex of animals.

It's sometimes true that humans don't really know the sex or anatomy of animals they are not familiar with, and therefore they mis-sex some animals.

In human animals, that can mean gender.

I am unable to perceive most biological males as female just because those males have thoughts in their head of being female, or even when they dress in a way more typical of women than men. I'm not doing this to be mean or nasty.

So? If someone knows that person X displays or thinks of themself as a particular gender, it is polite or thoughtful act to acknowledge that.

Why is it polite or thoughtful to acknowledge their gender, and even if it were, why do you believe that pronouns refer to gender and not sex?

I don't. Pronouns can refer to either. Again, this is not rocket science no matter how hard you wish to make it.

I have never ever enquired about somebody's gender. It has never crossed my mind what thoughts are in a person's head about their own personality. Was I being rude my whole life by not asking about somebody's thoughts about their 'gender'?

Wow, the level obtuseness in that reaction is truly amazing.

Is it mean to act otherwise? If someone deliberately misgenders a person, in my view, it is, at a minimum, a thoughtless gesture.

I think that treating gender as if it were sex--something that appears to be necessary in order to not 'misgender' some people, is a far greater problem.

That is non-responsive unless you are saying that "greater problem" justifies thoughtless or outright meanness. Frankly I find that rationale unpersuasive and a pathetic defense for thoughtlessness and meanness.

Really, this is not rocket science.

There is no need to misrepresent history to make your argument. In fact, misrepresenting reality allows people to more readily dismiss it.

I am not misrepresenting history. 'Gender' was not a term even applied to humans until (as far as I know) the 1960s. Before the 1960s, pronouns must have been referring to sex (or perceived sex, if you insist).

Nonsense. Throughout history there have been people who have passed themselves off as members of the opposite sex.

They may well have, but what of it? That people have been mistaken about somebody's sex does not mean that pronouns do not, or did not, refer to sex.

For some obscure reason, you are unable to parse the notion that a pronoun can refer to sex or gender.

And if one thinks about it, if one is perceiving person X as a woman, one is likely perceiving the gender if not also the sex.

Really, this is not rocket science no matter how hard one tries to make it.

I have no idea what the gender of a person I'm looking at is, or whether they even have a gender. Why, if gender is something separate to sex, should I refer to somebody's gender and not their sex?

When you see someone who appears for all purposes to be female, then you certainly have an idea of that person's gender and their sex.
When you see someone who appears for all purposes to be male, then you certainly have an idea of that person's gender and their sex.
Again, this is not rocket science.

If you see someone who appears for all purposes to be a female, and that you know is male, and who you know identifies as female, and you use male pronouns to address that person, either you are thoughtless or an ass.

Again, that is not rocket science, no matter how hard you wish to make it.

 

[Keith&Co.]

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

 

[Jarhyn]

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

You literally.. I saw that and was gonna be all up on since when didn't sailors call ships "she/her", and I'm pretty sure the thing that be-wombs ships are shipyards but damn you beat me to it.

And then I scroll down.

 

[Metaphor]

Gender means sex. Huh.

Who claimed that?

For forty years i have referred to every ship i served on as 'she/her.'

That's because, in English, ships have the gender 'female'.

 

[Metaphor]

Pronouns have always been about sex in animals.

That is untrue. Pronouns have been about the perceived sex of animals.

It's sometimes true that humans don't really know the sex or anatomy of animals they are not familiar with, and therefore they mis-sex some animals.

In human animals, that can mean gender.

I am unable to perceive most biological males as female just because those males have thoughts in their head of being female, or even when they dress in a way more typical of women than men. I'm not doing this to be mean or nasty.

So? If someone knows that person X displays or thinks of themself as a particular gender, it is polite or thoughtful act to acknowledge that.

Why is it polite or thoughtful to acknowledge their gender, and even if it were, why do you believe that pronouns refer to gender and not sex?

I don't. Pronouns can refer to either. Again, this is not rocket science no matter how hard you wish to make it.

So, if pronouns can refer to either, why is it 'correct' that pronouns refer to gender and not sex?

I have never ever enquired about somebody's gender. It has never crossed my mind what thoughts are in a person's head about their own personality. Was I being rude my whole life by not asking about somebody's thoughts about their 'gender'?

Wow, the level obtuseness in that reaction is truly amazing.

Is it mean to act otherwise? If someone deliberately misgenders a person, in my view, it is, at a minimum, a thoughtless gesture.

I think that treating gender as if it were sex--something that appears to be necessary in order to not 'misgender' some people, is a far greater problem.

That is non-responsive unless you are saying that "greater problem" justifies thoughtless or outright meanness. Frankly I find that rationale unpersuasive and a pathetic defense for thoughtlessness and meanness.

There is a greater problem that gender identity is being substituted for and supplanting sex, as if they were the same thing, as if they were interchangeable. They are not the same thing and they are not interchangeable.

It is thoughtless and mean for you to demand I participate in other people's fantasies and to demand I utter things I do not believe.

Really, this is not rocket science.

There is no need to misrepresent history to make your argument. In fact, misrepresenting reality allows people to more readily dismiss it.

I am not misrepresenting history. 'Gender' was not a term even applied to humans until (as far as I know) the 1960s. Before the 1960s, pronouns must have been referring to sex (or perceived sex, if you insist).

Nonsense. Throughout history there have been people who have passed themselves off as members of the opposite sex.

They may well have, but what of it? That people have been mistaken about somebody's sex does not mean that pronouns do not, or did not, refer to sex.

For some obscure reason, you are unable to parse the notion that a pronoun can refer to sex or gender.

And if one thinks about it, if one is perceiving person X as a woman, one is likely perceiving the gender if not also the sex.

Really, this is not rocket science no matter how hard one tries to make it.

I have no idea what the gender of a person I'm looking at is, or whether they even have a gender. Why, if gender is something separate to sex, should I refer to somebody's gender and not their sex?

When you see someone who appears for all purposes to be female, then you certainly have an idea of that person's gender and their sex.

What on earth does 'for all purposes' mean? There are men and women in my office (I refer, of course, to their sex, which is obvious to most people). How do I know their gender? Should I ask everybody? Why?

When you see someone who appears for all purposes to be male, then you certainly have an idea of that person's gender and their sex.
Again, this is not rocket science.

If you see someone who appears for all purposes to be a female, and that you know is male, and who you know identifies as female, and you use male pronouns to address that person, either you are thoughtless or an ass.

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?

Again, that is not rocket science, no matter how hard you wish to make it.

 

[Jarhyn]

Gender means sex. Huh.

Who claimed that?

For forty years i have referred to every ship i served on as 'she/her.'

That's because, in English, ships have the gender 'female'.

Does he really not see it? Like, he's sooo close, just kind of lightly grazing against the clue, almost so gently as to be a lover's caress!

But alas, he does not see it. It is to him merely a passing breeze, and he did after all just pass some breeze himself...

 

[Metaphor]

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

You literally.. I saw that and was gonna be all up on since when didn't sailors call ships "she/her", and I'm pretty sure the thing that be-wombs ships are shipyards but damn you beat me to it.

And then I scroll down.

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

 

[Jarhyn]

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

You literally.. I saw that and was gonna be all up on since when didn't sailors call ships "she/her", and I'm pretty sure the thing that be-wombs ships are shipyards but damn you beat me to it.

And then I scroll down.

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

Ok, now, tell me Mr "pronouns must be for animal sex", what this implies to "pronouns must be for animal sex"?

 

[Keith&Co.]

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

You literally.. I saw that and was gonna be all up on since when didn't sailors call ships "she/her", and I'm pretty sure the thing that be-wombs ships are shipyards but damn you beat me to it.

And then I scroll down.

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

And the Carver was a lady.
The Franklin tried to grunge fuck a tug boat in New London. That was the year they decided waxing the deck in the missile compartment created static electric hazards for sensitive equipment. I never drew the connection before. No attention, angry sex, a tug noat forced to go down on her...

 

[Metaphor]

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

You literally.. I saw that and was gonna be all up on since when didn't sailors call ships "she/her", and I'm pretty sure the thing that be-wombs ships are shipyards but damn you beat me to it.

And then I scroll down.

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

Ok, now, tell me Mr "pronouns must be for animal sex", what this implies to "pronouns must be for animal sex"?

It implies that animals have a sex, and, in English, the pronouns for those animals are based on the animal's sex.