Pronouns

[Winter_Fare]

Femsplaining: The tendency of some women to mistakenly believe that they automatically know more about any given topic than a man does and who, consequently, proceeds to explain to him, correctly or not, things that he already knows.

Seems like there's a lot of that today.

Oh calm your tits comrade, you can handle it.

 

[gordo12]

@MasterGordo
You're kidding me right?
Easy read version:
Habitually misgendering people is not edgy, there's no painting it as anything other than dogged indifference or ignorance.Trans people, non binary people, all people in fact are entitled to respect and acknowledgment as people, not problems.

You lost my respect when you said you went to so many different care homes over years and never noticed one single episode of abuse to patients. You're blind to it is all. It happens with terrifying regularity even in the best institution. Temporary staff, staff having bad days, prejudices of their own. I've worked in healthcare for 22 years by the way, seven in elderly care, seven in adult nursing, the rest where I am now, so no bullshit. You just don't register it for what it is.

Lastly your example of "master" as an everyday pronoun is ludicrous, and flippant, not funny at all. It's a title, not a pronoun.

Yada, yada. Another delusional rant. And when you DO pull your head out of your ass, use that respect to plug the void. It's about all it's worth.

 

[SimonDoom]

The trouble with saying everyone should have a seat at the table is that too often the people talking are the ones who should be listening.

This is the problem with this attitude: you don't get to determine who talks and who listens. Everybody should be listening, and everyone should have the right to talk. The whole idea of "the ones who should be listening" is completely misguided, smug, and wrong. It's a terrible concept.

 

[gordo12]

In gordo12's sense? Best to ask him yourself, I think. But if I had to guess, I'd be rather surprised if I were to find out that gordo12 considers words like car or dog as equally "invented" as cisgender . . .

Melissa does have it right that all words are invented. Perhaps I should have used "becoming popular in the current lexicon" instead.

 

[Winter_Fare]

@gordo12 So erm, every time you reply with an insult, just so you know, it builds your credibility to unassailable heights.

 

[gordo12]

@MasterGordo So erm, every time you reply with an insult, just so you know, it builds your credibility to unassailable heights.

So mine are insults, and yours are the epitome of respect! Like I said...delusional.

 

[Winter_Fare]

So mine are insults, and yours are the epitome of respect! Like I said...delusional.

I'm sticking to the facts. I only give as good as I get, comrade.

 

[Auden James]

Melissa does have it right that all words are invented. Perhaps I should have used "becoming popular in the current lexicon" instead.

Interesting. So what's your argument then? That to use terms that have only recently become "popular in the current lexicon" in a debate on serious matters is "delusional?"

 

[gordo12]

Interesting. So what's your argument then? That to use terms that have only recently become "popular in the current lexicon" in a debate on serious matters is "delusional?"

No, like Simon said...the demand that we are required to use those terms to address people. I don't buy it.

 

[Winter_Fare]

I can't be bothered. They can call themselves what they want. For me, it's he or she.

To me, it's a mark of disrespect when someone expects me to remember their preferred designation. It's a real "ME" moment when they do. It's all about "them!" They need to get over themselves.

Why should I? She-he-it-they-her-orwhatever asked how I would handle it in writing. I can't be bothered to pay attention to something I consider ridiculous.

And this: "cis het white men: disgusting, pigs, make my blood boil, deserve to die, there are no good ones, racist, homophobic, misogynistic, overall bigots," is hardly the mark of someone respecting other's opinions. It's the mark of someone so far down the rabbit hole they can't see anyone else's point of view.

Society fucks us all over at every opportunity. Get over it.

There are probably enough survival stories in this forum to make a book...which isn't a bad idea!

So my refusal to submit to your so utterly important word list is indicative of my broad hatred of all those groups you mentioned. You do smear people with a wide brush. This is exactly why you and your buddy can't be talked to. Too far down the rabbit hole, all drinking the cool-aid, it goes on and on. BTW is "Buddy" ok? I wouldn't want to get on the wrong side of the sacred word list!

And there you go making assumptions again. None of that mattered because NOBODY made an issue out of it. Only an isolated group of people moaning and groaning about how badly life has treated them that get into this kind of mind think. Disagree with them and out come all the made-up derogatory terms.

And we were asked how we would handle this in WRITING, not real life.

There was one girl whose dad warned me she preferred the HE pronoun. But she also had a name. I used that because we worked together. Never had a problem, and why should I.

Whatever her sexual issues were, it had nothing to do with me, and I would never embarrass her by bringing it up.

But in your mind think, ANYONE who has a sexual identity issue should be demanding and strident about how they're addressed. It ain't so; most are private and would never say anything.

And by the way:

Would everybody please start addressing me as Master. Master Gordo that is. I feel a crisis coming on!

How disrespectful. I asked to be called Master which has a lovely connotation and you ignore it. How dare you?

So do yours. Again, how dare you disrespect my request? You want your word list, I want mine.

Master has a lot of connotations and throughout history meant other things that you allude to.

So let's face it, you and your buddies (is that an ok address) are hypocrites. It's all about YOU!

Straight out of the OP's post. Yet anyone not drinking the cool-aid is getting shit on.

I do have thoughts whether anybody likes them or not. I don't think we need new pronouns.

And we certainly don't need a bunch of wanna-be-woke morons telling us we're wrong.

I sympathize with the issues they have, I DO NOT sympathize with the demand we all
address it in their invented terms.

TLDR gordo's actual argument.

 

[gordo12]

MY, my, my! I must be living rent-free in your head.

 

[Winter_Fare]

Just so things don't get twisted around. Sprawled over three pages it doesn't look so bad, and I was sort of doubting myself, I guess? Nah. You literally haven't made a single valid point.

 

[Bramblethorn]

"Cis" has been part of the English language, as a standard counterpart to "trans", for centuries. Ask an organic chemist, or go look up terms like "Cisalpine Gaul", "cislunar", "cisatlantic", etc. etc. - in every case, a counterpart to the "trans" version of the same term. Once "transsexual" and "transgender" entered the language, "cissexual"/"cisgender" were the implied counterparts by standard patterns of English word formation.

Footnote to this, for anybody who was born more than a hundred years ago and has trouble with new words, see e.g. Webster's 1913 dictionary:

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/661/661-h/661-h.htm
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/669/669-h/669-h.htm

Cis- (?). A Latin preposition, sometimes used as a prefix in English words, and signifying on this side.

Cis*al"pine (?), a. [L. Cisalpinus; cis on this side + Alpinus Alpine.] On the hither side of the Alps with reference to Rome, that is, on the south side of the Alps; -- opposed to transalpine.

Cis`at*lan"tic (?), a. [Pref. cis- + Atlantic.] On this side of the Atlantic Ocean; -- used of the eastern or the western side, according to the standpoint of the writer. Story.

Trans- (?). [L. trans across, over.] A prefix, signifying over, beyond, through and through, on the other side, as in transalpine, beyond the Alps; transform, to form through and through, that is, anew, transfigure.

 

[Bramblethorn]

This is the problem with this attitude: you don't get to determine who talks and who listens. Everybody should be listening, and everyone should have the right to talk. The whole idea of "the ones who should be listening" is completely misguided, smug, and wrong. It's a terrible concept.

We seem to be back to confusing compulsion and censure. Alina was talking about the people who should be talking/listening, not about who should have the right to talk. Those are distinct concepts: I have the right to call you rude names, but it is rarely something I should be doing.

Should we ban uninformed time-wasters from taking up space in discussions of this sort? Probably not, because that requires putting a fallible human in charge of making that judgement, and such power usually ends up being abused.

Should uninformed time-wasters STFU and listen to people who actually know what they're talking about? Would the world be a better place if that happened? Would discussions like this be more informative and useful? Yes, absolutely. They're not gonna, but it's not wrong to wish they would.

 

[Bramblethorn]

And by the way:

Would everybody please start addressing me as Master. Master Gordo that is. I feel a crisis coming on!

I'm cool with this, given that historically "master" has commonly been used as a form of address for boys who have not yet grown into adulthood.

 

[gordo12]

I'm cool with this, given that historically "master" has commonly been used as a form of address for boys who have not yet grown into adulthood.

You got that one wrong.

"Master was used in England for men of some rank, especially "free masters" of a trade guild and by any manual worker or servant employee addressing his employer (his master), but also generally by those lower in status to gentlemen, priests, or scholars"

Being 1/2 English and all.

 

[gordo12]

Just so things don't get twisted around. Sprawled over three pages it doesn't look so bad, and I was sort of doubting myself, I guess? Nah. You literally haven't made a single valid point.

If you get bored with me, Keith always has openings on his stalker squad.

 

[Comshaw]

This thread was derailed early on into a subject that is discussed to death with vitriol out in the real world. There is an interesting discussion to be had about characters, gender identity and pronouns, but it can't be had if people detour into personal grievances.

The whole echo chamber argument is tiresome. It reeks of attacks on safe spaces in universities ("Oh, students are such snowflakes! How will they learn about the real world if they deplatform all the fascists and bigots?") and attacks on trans people ("They keep saying, 'No debate,' but we have concerns!" as if it's not only acceptable but somehow necessary to debate taking away existing human rights.) when the simple truth is that right-wing assholes feel they have a God-given right to be heard. You try criticising a transphobe and they'll run screaming to the press about how they're being silenced.

"The whole echo chamber argument is tiresome. It reeks of attacks on safe spaces in universities...and attacks on trans people."

I don't get that. Two different and separate concepts and actions. How does listening to only what you want to hear (echo chamber) equate to an attack on safe spaces? There is no common thread between those two points. But let me address those two points separately.
An attack on a "safe space" for those who need one shouldn't happen. Some people are tough and can do without. Others are fragile and need a place to get away from what they deem as harmful.
But living in an echo chamber is harmful. Listening to only those things one agrees with, that bolster ones own opinion, is dangerous. It also allows one to be ignorant of those who would oppose what one believes. Everyone who wishes to win, in anything should pay heed to Sun Tzu, "If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles." That can't be accomplished by ignoring or not engaging those you oppose. To be effective, to win, you MUST study, listen to and engage those people. To do otherwise is to set the stage for your own defeat.

And "the right wing assholes" (you do realize what that statement shows, don't you?) do have a right to be heard when something is being required of them. Trans people and others are demanding those right-wingers use the pronouns they want them to use. As I said earlier, you can force them to acquiesce to demands or convince them you are right. A person convinced is a strong ally. A person forced is a boil waiting to rupture, if you can force thme at all.

The problem is the extremest on the left are so far around the corner the distance between them and the extremest on the right is much less than the distance between them and the moderates on their own side.

Comshaw

 

[gordo12]

Now here's something for you all to get really upset over!

Texas begins investigating parents of transgender teens for child abuse​

 

[Bramblethorn]

I'm cool with this, given that historically "master" has commonly been used as a form of address for boys who have not yet grown into adulthood.

You got that one wrong.

Oh?

Dictionary.com, definition #19: "a boy or young man (used chiefly as a term of address)."

Merriam-Webster, definition 3a.2: "a youth or boy too young to be called mister —used as a title."

Cambridge Dictionary, under "title": "old-fashioned: used before the name of a boy who is too young to be called "Mr"."

For somebody who takes such objection to newfangled English, you don't seem to be very conversant with the oldfangled variety.

Being 1/2 English and all.

One-half English? GOSH! Well that's me impressed.

Not quite as impressed as if you'd taken the time to check your facts in a dictionary before posting, though.

 

[Bramblethorn]

But if you choose to do Just Debating in a week when people are being criminalised merely for being supportive of their transgender children, don't expect people who have more at stake than yourself to adhere to a code of "civility" that was formed by, and for the benefit of, comfortable straight cis people. I may respond to it if the fancy takes me, but I'm not going to go out of my way to make the tone of that reply comfortable to genteel ears.

Now here's something for you all to get really upset over!

Texas begins investigating parents of transgender teens for child abuse​

Have you considered actually reading the thread that you're posting in?

 

[XerXesXu]

I see it differently, having been a student 30 years ago - back then it was much more about not saying what it was inconvenient to say. Been raped? Don't mention it to college nor the police. Denied promotion? Well, no-one likes a woman who makes a fuss. Been beaten up for looking queer? You shouldn't have been so obvious. Don't fit the gender binary? Pick the one which goes with your genitals and shut up, freak. Your genitals don't fit the sex binary? Get surgery and never tell anyone.


I reckon half the issue with transphobia is simply people thinking 'the world wasn't like this when I was young, and now I feel old,

Spot on.

I live in the Philippines. Tagalog has gender-neutral pronouns, in Taglish, amongst all but the most educated, they default to female. Ladyboys are ‘she’, bakla are ‘she’, offspring are ‘daughter’, spouse is ‘wife’. My son is my ‘daughter’ and I am my wife’s ‘wife’. But it’s not really about pronouns.

Here, only the academic would recognise the expression ‘gender fluidity’, but it’s culturally embedded. Some people are ladyboys, some tomboys, some bakla and some are the rest. Ladyboys are female, tomboys are male and bakla are undetermined. The partner of a ladyboy is just one of the rest, as is the partner of a tomboy. A guy, happily married with children, who takes out a macho-dancer on a Saturday night is neither gay nor bisexual, just one of the rest. In my acquaintanceship, there’s only been one settled couple (ex-pat/Filipina) with a ladyboy wife (partner). Filipinos accepted them as a normal couple, ex-pats – ‘when in Rome’, only transient foreigners felt uncomfortable if they found out the wife was a ladyboy, and assumed the husband was gay. For everyone else, it was a question that didn't arise.

I think transphobia is a reflection of old farts like me feeling uncomfortable about the re-emergence of a previously suppressed reality, and pronouns are a convenient battlefield to express their discomfort.

 

[Bramblethorn]

And "the right wing assholes" (you do realize what that statement shows, don't you?) do have a right to be heard when something is being required of them. Trans people and others are demanding those right-wingers use the pronouns they want them to use. As I said earlier, you can force them to acquiesce to demands or convince them you are right. A person convinced is a strong ally. A person forced is a boil waiting to rupture, if you can force thme at all.

Can you show me an example, any example, of a prominent right-wing figure who initially refused to address trans people by their requested pronouns but was eventually won over to doing so by reasoned debate? I would be fascinated to see a pattern for how to successfully do that, because all I've seen leads me to believe that the power of debate as a tool for changing such people's minds has been vastly over-sold.

 

[AlinaX]

Re. "right-wing assholes":
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/50...dark-money-into-groups-opposing-equal-rights/

Re. Echo chambers, safe spaces & deplatforming bigots:
https://www.theguardian.com/educati...iversity-safe-spaces-for-shutting-down-debate

 

[ElectricBlue]

"Cis" has been part of the English language, as a standard counterpart to "trans", for centuries. Ask an organic chemist, or go look up terms like "Cisalpine Gaul", "cislunar", "cisatlantic", etc. etc. - in every case, a counterpart to the "trans" version of the same term. Once "transsexual" and "transgender" entered the language, "cissexual"/"cisgender" were the implied counterparts by standard patterns of English word formation.

Even in the specific context of sexuality, the use of "cis" as standard counterpart to "trans" goes back much further than 1994 and was well known to scholars. For instance, here's an encyclopedia definition published in 1914, which presents cisvestitism as a counterpart to transvestitism:

Pedantically yes, and by the dictionary yes, but for the duration of my life spent in the twentieth century (four decades or so) I was always heterosexual, and it's only been in the last ten years or so that I discovered I had this new cis label bestowed on me (as an aside, without my knowledge, consent, and without much discussion). Ironically, I had to look in a dictionary to find out what it meant, the first time I saw it - and it's not that I'm not well read.

So yes, you're technically right, but the widespread usage of cis is more a twenty-first century thing, I think - and the reason for its adoption does makes sense, I get that.

I don't have a problem with cis nowadays (now that I know what it means) - for talking about lunar trajectories, I might have used the term, for my own sexuality, not so much. But then, I don't wear badges .