Preferred pronouns

ttaskmaster said:
190-something, I think... why do you ask?

https://lmgtfy.app/?q=How+many+countries+are+in+the+world?
Click to expand...
The answer is, it depends on who is counting and it is deeply political. Nice try with the facetious link to LMGTFY though. If we can't even agree on number of countries how else do you propose we draft a list of official pronouns and only use the ones that are officially accepted? (And who decides who is official?)

ttaskmaster said:
They don't get to decide what is and isn't acceptable.
There are 41 sets of officially adopted pronouns, according to our employee guide book on the topic... though I note that there are several different representitative organisations that define which are the official ones, and none of them actually agree on which ones those are... and yet we're still directed to accept even those that aren't on the official list.
Click to expand...

Anyway your replies are worse than dowie-holes so I won't be continuing the discussion, but I hope you learnt something
 
People who find this a problem need to reevaluate their life choices. Maybe think about why they voted for Brexit and why they racially abuse sportspeople on Twitter...
 
Kreeeee said:

This is not a troll post, it's a really interesting video.
Click to expand...
Great video. I actually have the same book those chaps have on their desk "the phantom atlas".

Here is a good fact for you - cartographers often sneak in a fake island, road, or place name to be able to determine if their work is ever plagiarised. One of these islands lived in popular atlas' for decades.
 
randomshenans said:
For me it's more creating a space / environment where those who may not feel they identify as you and I, more seemingly obvious, can feel they can put those without standing out and it being awkward
Click to expand...

I'm still not following.

Maybe I haven't been subjected to it or followed it enough to grasp it when it's plainly black and white like my example.
 
I've no problem with it and wish more non-trans people would do it. First of all it normalises it so that trans people feel more included in the workplace and as a manager, why would I not want my employees to feel comfortable? Secondly, it's actually really useful in emails if someone has a gender neutral name or a foreign name you've never come across before. Don't really understand why people get so bent out of shape about it.
 
I work at an Art university there are all sorts of wonderful different variations of pronouns across the campuses, I just refer to people by their name and keep things simple :)
 
The IPB said:
I work at an Art university there are all sorts of wonderful different variations of pronouns across the campuses, I just refer to people by their name and keep things simple :)
Click to expand...

This. There's a couple at my work, just call them by name. Or "thingy, upstairs, you know the one?"
 
mjt said:
People who find this a problem need to reevaluate their life choices. Maybe think about why they voted for Brexit and why they racially abuse sportspeople on Twitter...
Click to expand...

When did you stop beating your wife? (Or husband or life parter etc)

So are you fine with compelled speech in the guise of making people affirm what is not true?

There have after all been some rather hilarious examples, in the last few years, where even supposed trans/non binary/ alphabet soup activist groups and people have manged to 'misgender' people like 'they/them' Sam Smith....


(By confirming out what everyone knows... namley that Sam Smith is a man and therefore a he/him)


If they can't consistently maintain cognitive dissonance long enough to state falsehoods them what chance does the average Joe or Jane have?

Its OK, to an extent when, when men put he/him in their bios and signatures and women put she/her in theirs.

It's even somewhat manageable when trans people use the pronouns of the opposite sex (assuming they at least try and look like a stereotypical presentation of the opposite sex)

But then you get the Gregor Murray's of the world. Bearded men who sometimes wear suits and abuse women (actual women, not other sometimes bearded men who claim they are women) by saying they would like to see them on the day that falls after Monday but before Wednesday

Abusive narcissists who just love dullards who object to concerns about the trans agenda thinking it demonstrates their supposed 'progressive' credentials.

Still there's a problem with implying that anyone who disagrees with you is some combination of a white supremacist, racist, sexist turbo nazi...

People like JK Rowling were formerly the darlings of social activism until they went a bit of script by not supporting the Scottish Indy vote and then wildy of it by saying that they believed sex objectively existed, was not something that existed in someone's subjective opinion of themselves and what's more that a person's sex mattered to them and how they may be treated by others.

So by making the above implications you may after all find yourself part of an ever decreasing sad clique until maybe one day you to find yourself on the 'wrong' side of an issue and find yourself all alone.

As a test try consistently referring to someone as something like 'fae/ faeself' and see how easy you find it to do it repeatedly and without a massive amount of constant thought.
 
Last edited:
I don't have a problem with it. But seems utterly pointless for the minority that have a special pronoun they prefer.

We have an option in our place where we can enable it or disable it from our signature. I've disabled it personally, but it does help with people you've not met (i.e. if they have a name you're not sure about).

But regardless I'd call them by their name anyway. So it just seems like extra PC stuff for the sake of ticking an EDI box at your workplace.
 
We have it at our place but the uptake isn't substantial. Our CEO, CFO, and Group CEO and CFOs all use it so I suspect that'll grow.

Also just LOL at the normal GD'ers mouthbreathing into a window like, "LOL IT DOESN'T AFFECT ME SO I LITERALLY CANNOT UNDERSTAND WHY ANYONE WOULD CONSIDER IT AND, FURTHER, NOT ONLY DOES IT NOT AFFECT ME AT ALL, I ACTIVELY HATE THE IDEA AND EVERYTHING ABOUT IT"

Such delicate sensibilities :cry: :cry:
 
The only usefulness the pro noun malarkey has for me is, If they are in that mindset of alt pro nouns I know that it's best to avoid you as anything I say will be taken down and used against me.

all this 50+ gender stuff makes me think about how people had a god for everything back in the day.



Dowie vs SC

 
Last edited:
chroniclard said:
Indeed, they are all nasty pieces of work on divisive authoritarian crusades, much like all Brexiters are racists. :cry:
Click to expand...

Nice try at a false equivalence, but it remains a false equivalence:

Authoritarianism and irrational prejudices are an inherent part of biological (or what the ideology says is biological) group identity politics.
Racism is not an inherent part of not wanting to be part of a specific union.
 
Kreeeee said:
This could have all been resolved by just picking one gender-less pronoun to use for everyone.
Click to expand...

It would seem that way, but it would only resolve the problem for people who don't want to pick a fight and impose their dominance on other people. So it would have no practical effect in this context - trans activists would claim it was transphobic hate speech facism blah blah blah anyway.

It would also reduce the idea that a person's sex is of such paramount importance that it's their identity (i.e. the sadly fashionable belief that "they're all the same"), so it would be opposed by feminists too.

Since both those ideologies have a lot of power, it's unlikely to happen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom