|
Something being a closed class doesn't mean it's literally unchangeable. It means that it shifts generationally. Why this is evil, insane, whatever slander is intended, God only knows.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 16:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 01:06 |
|
|
Sucrose posted:We're just going to have to agree to disagree, I can't wrap my head around your viewpoint where you think it's reasonable for someone to demand that people change the very grammar of the language when speaking to them. If they want to use odd, self-constructed grammar, they can feel free, but it's ridiculous for them to demand or even ask that others join them in the insanity when in their presence. You say that when typing on a forum on the mysterious nonesense word internet using italics tags to illustrate your point. Language changes, suggesting that the language we have right this minute is sacrosanct and cannot possibly be changed even voluntarily by the people using it, is kind of mental.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 17:03
|
|
|
If you think humanity is about to enter a golden age where we call people "xir/xe" and abandon 10 000 years of gender and sexuality I don't know what to tell you. Language changes. Language is not going to change to accommodate the feelings of a fraction of a fraction of LGB people.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 17:08
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:If you think humanity is about to enter a golden age where we call people "xir/xe" and abandon 10 000 years of gender and sexuality I don't know what to tell you. And I'm sure people are not going to stop calling gay people faggots but that doesn't make it right that they do so.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 17:13
|
|
|
Big difference between selling "Don't call people slurs" and "Use made up fantasy words to placate someone with a gender identity that can change on a whim".
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 17:21
|
|
|
Is "they" the new "human being?" Our crack team of reporters investigates at 9.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 17:23
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
Well there's certainly a difference in that you seem pretty convinced that the latter group are not worthy of anything but derision and seem pretty happy about being able to make them feel bad without getting called out on it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 17:23
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Well there's certainly a difference in that you seem pretty convinced that the latter group are not worthy of anything but derision and seem pretty happy about being able to make them feel bad without getting called out on it. See, to me that's agreeable. OwlFancier posted:Well there's certainly a difference in that you seem pretty convinced that the latter group are not worthy of anything but derision and seem pretty happy about being able to make xem feel bad without getting called out on it. Less so. See the difference?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 17:25
|
|
|
Two letters?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 17:26
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Two letters? Well, that being the case we can agree to disagree and keep referring to people who object to "he" or "she" "they", seeing as it's already a word in common usage and all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 17:29
|
|
|
Or we could use whatever the person we're talking to or about prefers because it's not difficult.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 17:30
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Or we could use whatever the person we're talking to prefers because it's not difficult. Why? He - Masculine She - Feminine They - Group or neutral Xe - ??? Zir - ??? Ve - ??? See how there's functionally no difference?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 17:33
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:Why? There's functionally no difference if I start calling you Splorf instead of your name but you probably would find it a bit annoying if I persisted in doing so.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 17:35
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Or we could use whatever the person we're talking to or about prefers because it's not difficult. You say this now, I already have trouble remembering if it's "bloomself" or "bloomselves."
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 17:36
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:There's functionally no difference if I start calling you Splorf instead of your name but you probably would find it a bit annoying if I persisted in doing so. I'm glad that you agree calling people Splorf is as absurd as calling people Xe. In both cases, the fantasy doesn't change the underlying reality. Society agrees that my name is whatever is on my birth certificate and legal documents. My family agrees that it is whatever I was raised / baptized / confirmed as. My friends might agree on a preferred nickname. I call myself whatever I want, almost always in line with the previous three. If you call me Splorf, it doesn't make my name Splorf. A 'Genderqueer' person with Female on 'their' birth certificate and a woman's name can change their gender to male on all government documents, or keep it the same. 'They' can use women's washrooms or men's. 'They' can ask people to address 'them' as a 'they'. It doesn't make them one, but polite society is willing to accommodate people on this. Asking people to use a made-up word to describe them only draws more attention to the fragility and artifice of their identity, something I thought the LGBT community was trying to avoid.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 17:46
|
|
|
It's funny that people in this thread are clutching pearls about spivak pronouns, which are older than most of the people making the argument that they're "too new." Neutral pronouns besides "they" have been discussed and even in play since before the 20th century. It's not some new phenomenon. The lot of you who are hand wringing that they're too new or difficult are behind the times by multiple decades.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 17:48
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:I'm glad that you agree calling people Splorf is as absurd as calling people Xe. And you persisting in referring to a person as something other than what they are does not make them the thing you call them, though it is rather irritating. Polite individuals respect the right of other individuals to assert some agency in their identity, and don't spit their dummies out over being asked not to use the words they like using.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 17:49
|
|
|
I expect people to embrace spivak about as much as they've embraced Esperanto.OwlFancier posted:And you persisting in referring to a person as something other than what they are does not make them the thing you call them, though it is rather irritating. Other than what they are? If a person is not a "he" or a "she" they must be a "they". What is the difference between a "they" and a "xir"? Frosted Flake fucked around with this message at 17:52 on Mar 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 17:50
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:I expect people to embrace spivak about as much as they've embraced Esperanto. You actually honestly expect people to embrace "they" as a singular pronoun when people are very fiercely against that, too. edit: Frosted Flake posted:Other than what they are? If a person is not a "he" or a "she" they must be a "they". What is the difference between a "they" and a "xir"? There's an issue with othering, in this specific example you've given/how you've worded it. Tying that in to how some people perceive trans people, it could (and has) led to people calling trans women and trans men (who identify as women and men) being called they in order to other them. As for the second part, the difference between they and xe would be personal comfort level and identity. Someone may feel like "they" is othering, as stated, and prefer something more closely resembling a "traditional" pronoun. les enfants Terrific! fucked around with this message at 18:01 on Mar 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 17:51
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:Other than what they are? If a person is not a "he" or a "she" they must be a "they". What is the difference between a "they" and a "xir"? What is the difference between red, green, and "everything else"?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 17:53
|
|
|
Atasnaya Vaflja posted:You actually honestly expect people to embrace "they" as a singular pronoun when people are very fiercely against that, too. It's a fig-leaf of politeness so most people can shrug and move on with their day and not be lectured on a special snowflake identity and the accompanying set of pronouns. If people want to insist on calling people pronouns that match with their sex, I don't think they're wrong but it's impolite. OwlFancier posted:What is the difference between red, green, and "everything else"? The difference is for 10 000 years society has agreed that red and green exist, and people would rather not have to go through a mental list of "everything else" to address a person in everyday conversation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 17:55
|
|
|
Sucrose posted:I would say that expecting someone to memorize a new pronoun with three different conjugations depending on the subject of the sentence that refers to you and you only is extremely onerous. English already has a gender neutral pronoun that is in common parlance and has been since at least the 16th century, if the OED is an acceptable authority: "they" I.e. "This is Robin, they are my brother's friend" is an entirely socially acceptable thing to say, does not assume gender, and is not dehumanizing the subject at all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 17:56
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:The difference is for 10 000 years society has agreed that red and green exist, and people would rather not have to go through a mental list of "everything else" to address a person in everyday conversation. Then presumably we should ban names, and just refer to people by approximate hair colour, because who wants to go to the effort of remembering all those names when addressing people?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 17:58
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:The difference is for 10 000 years society has agreed that red and green exist, and people would rather not have to go through a mental list of "everything else" to address a person in everyday conversation. There's societies that don't actually "recognize" green, or red, or other colors exist.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 17:59
|
|
|
Everything is a social construct including colours and names. Congratulations on making that argument. Now that everything is nothing and means nothing and serves no purpose - just accept that most people are not going to accept genderqueer people and their So, I agree to disagree. The English language is not going to change for the Pats of the world.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 18:16
|
|
|
Thank you for pointing out that people are intransigent, I wouldn't have known that if you hadn't.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Now, with that out of the way: I don't think it's right to just dismiss inter-subjective bonding, the issue is that this requirement currently conflicts with trans individuals and their self-expression. I believe these two things can be reconciled, but we've got to approach this seriously. First things first: what you look like has consequences. If you're making a choice to transition, and it's unlikely you'll 'pass' as the gender your transitioning into, you've made the wrong choice. What you feel you really are 'deep inside' is pointless, if you can't look like the gender you're aiming for, then you effectively have not actually transitioned. That may be a problem of technology, so in the future maybe it will work better, but gender is absolutely a performance you do. In order to perform, you need to not just want to perform, but actually technically perform. So I disagree that bathroom/pronouns/other poo poo should necessarily be legal-sex-based, but it absolutely should be perception-based. The correct designation for you is 100% what you superficially look like. You see it come up here and there in philosophy, e.g., quote:Observe yourselves thus in your actions, and you will find of what sect you are. You will find that most of you are Epicureans; a few are Peripatetics, and those but loose ones. For by what action will you prove that you think virtue equal, and even superior, to all other things? Show me a Stoic, if you have one. Where? Or how should you? You can show, indeed, a thousand who repeat the Stoic reasonings. But do they repeat the Epicurean less well? Are they not just as perfect in the Peripatetic? Who then is a Stoic? As we call that a Phidian statue which is formed according to the art of Phidias, so show me some one person formed according to the principles which he professes. and theology, e.g., quote:If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 18:18
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:So, I agree to disagree. The English language is not going to change for the Pats of the world.  It already has.We've already gotten terms, words, and concepts like transgender, cisgender, nonbinary, genderfluid, gender identity, etc. into speech, dictionaries, and thesauruses. You refusing to change isn't indicative of the world at large. Consider also the the fact that you clearly already also know these new and radical pronouns off the top of your head. It's strange to me that you claim that they're so hard to remember, but you're able to saliently recall them for every post. Obviously they're sticking somehow, if you're able to mock them with such intense clarity. You claim they're hard to remember, but somehow you're remembering them. Maybe they're not as difficult as you and others claim. les enfants Terrific! fucked around with this message at 18:29 on Mar 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 18:24
|
|
|
There is academic jargon for just about everything. That doesn't often find use outside the classroom, let alone find widespread acceptance.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 18:28
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:There is academic jargon for just about everything. That doesn't often find use outside the classroom, let alone find widespread acceptance. Yet these terms have. So I'm not sure what relevance this point has.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 18:30
|
|
|
You still seem to have a strange habit of conflating the status quo with a moral imperative.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 18:30
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:If you think humanity is about to enter a golden age where we call people "xir/xe" and abandon 10 000 years of gender and sexuality I don't know what to tell you. This is exactly one of the arguments made against gay marriage. Curiously it didn't work then, let's see if it works this time. Frosted Flake posted:Why? What, exactly, will you lose by respecting someone's wishes? Will Traditional-Gender Police murder your entire family? Will a meteor fall on your dog? Are "xe", "zir" and/or "ve" the words to the incantation that will break the seals keeping Mardulak the Warlock trapped below the earth? Were your parents murdered by Joe Genderqueer, and you swore to avenge their deaths? You are weirdly invested in absolutely, positively, under no circumstances ever having respect for someone with a non-traditional gender identity, and I'm just curious why that is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
People can think of themselves what they want, I'll meet them halfway out of politeness but beyond that I don't see a reason to indulge them. I guess if that's the status quo most people feel as I do.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 18:37
|
|
|
Isn't it ironic that well-intentioned supporters of transgender politics will criticize people for being so darn hung up on gender concepts when their entire struggle is defined by Caring about That
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 18:39
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:People can think of themselves what they want, I'll meet them halfway out of politeness but beyond that I don't see a reason to indulge them. Why not? You're already "violating 10,000 years of sexuality and gender" by not assigning them a gender (which for some reason is... bad?), so what makes slightly changing one singular syllable such an onerous burden?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 18:40
|
|
|
No, see it's 2016! They're on The Right Side of History. Somehow this generation is the one that will overturn some of the most engrained aspects of human society, by sheer force of will.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 18:41
|
|
|
Commie NedFlanders posted:Isn't it ironic that well-intentioned supporters of transgender politics will criticize people for being so darn hung up on gender concepts when their entire struggle is defined by Caring about That The argument is that traditional gender roles are unnecessary and should not be assigned to people without their consent. Instead people should be free to choose their own role regardless of their gender and the idea that there are only two acceptable roles is dumb. So, no it's not really very ironic.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 18:42
|
|
|
The argument that pronouns are an insurmountably difficult memory task is also weird when you realize just how much we can remember about people in general. If they're your friend, you should probably be respectful to them and offer the bare minimum. If they're someone you're never going to talk to again, you only have to remember for however long you talk to them. But it's not any harder to remember "Jenny, xe, brown hair, likes dogs." than it is to remember "Jenny, she, brown hair, likes dogs." Especially not when you consider how much information humans retain about acquaintances and friends in general. I could name minor traits about most of my friends, down to things as unimportant as dreams they had once, and I have bad memory problems. I can remember passing lines from strangers, even with my horrible memory. It's really not that difficult to remember to be respectful to people.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 18:45
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:The argument is that traditional gender roles are unnecessary and should not be assigned to people without their consent. Instead people should be free to choose their own role regardless of their gender and the idea that there are only two acceptable roles is dumb. You should not care about gender roles period. Demanding recognition for an arbitrary range of additional gender roles gets silly and is annying.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 18:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 01:06 |
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:No, see it's 2016! They're on The Right Side of History. Somehow this generation is the one that will overturn some of the most engrained aspects of human society, by sheer force of will. "Everything hasn't instantly changed, better fight tooth and nail to stop any change from possibly happening." Yes, that's a position that makes perfect sense all right. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 18:48
|
|