4 ms·

Dude has gone out of his way to make other people uncomfortable. I use singular they for my pronouns. He's so bothered by this that he goes out of his way to no

Dude has gone out of his way to make other people uncomfortable. I use singular they for my pronouns. He's so bothered by this that he goes out of his way to not only tell me I'm wrong for doing so, but to invent his own language for referring to folks who use gender neutral pronouns (which no one will understand, because it's not widely used). I would certainly question whether I was welcome at an event where he was a speaker/key presenter. Even if I was told I was welcome, I suspect others would feel emboldened to antagonistically challenge my pronouns. To me, it makes sense that if he's causing people to consider not attending events or signing up for his causes, then he's maybe not the right 'perse' for the job.

mr_woozy 7y ago
I feel emboldened to antagonistically challenge your pronouns right now, and I barely know you.
FakeComments 7y ago
You’re declaring how everyone else has to use language, but their refusal is antagonistic? Talk about entitled.
marmada 7y ago
I don't understand why his pronoun scheme is antagonistic. He still respects that you want gender neutral pronouns, he just won't use they because he thinks they has a standard plural meaning. I don't understand why people have an obligation to use "they" specifically as long as they respect the gender neutral concept.
- neltnerb 7y ago
  Because why wouldn't you? It's pretty minimal effort for something you want to express respect for. I have no reason to think Stallman didn't support whatever gender people in whatever roles, he seems more like a gender nihilist than anything. But it's pretty weird to spend time arguing with people about what their own personal experience is and I can see why it would make someone uncomfortable and unwelcome. It's very intrusive.
- Pfhreak 7y ago
  > I don't understand why people have an obligation to use "they" specifically as long as they respect the gender neutral concept. The same reason we use people's names. Or their nicknames. Or their middle names sometimes. Or their stage names, noms de plume, or noms de guerre. When you are introduced to someone you expect to be spending some time around, you might ask them, "Do you prefer Henry or Hank? Charles or Chuck? William or Bill?" And if they say, "Actually, I use my middle name, David." you wouldn't immediately say, "I'll go ahead and use your full first name because it's an equally equivalent name for you, because I'm respecting the concept of you. Culturally, we already accept a wide variety of markers for people in a host of different situations, and have generally settled on "it's polite to try and refer to people in the way they prefer." To me, it's as if RMS had posted a blog post that said, "I propose we use only people's full and legal names when referring to them, because I believe that system works better."
  - newnewpdro 7y ago
    This is a false equivalence If someone upon introduction said "actually, I prefer to be addressed by '$confusing_ambiguous_overloaded_word'" then I just might use the less preferred alternative - no harm intended. The other individual's preference isn't the only thing that matters. If it bothers me to speak that way, or I find it confusing and it interferes with the flow of my own thought processes while communicating, then I'm going to respectfully fallback to the easier form. You're not some special princess that gets to interject a cache miss into my thinking every time you're referenced. You're just being a pain in the ass. When I introduce myself to people I give a variety of names and monickers of varying degrees of complexity and let them pick whatever they prefer. I have an ethnic first name, it often requires spelling it to clarify its pronunciation. So I usually give my middle initials as an alternative and get the hell on with life. I'm far more interested in the free exchange of ideas than being treated like royalty requiring that I be addressed by some awkward unnatural contortion, like honorable judge pain in everyone's ass.
  - ng12 7y ago
    > "I propose we use only people's full and legal names when referring to them, because I believe that system works better." Undoubtedly a weird, outsider view of things but I wouldn't advocate him being punished for doing so. Nor would I advocate for shaming him for choosing to use people's full names in daily conversation.
- journalctl 7y ago
  Because one basic way of showing any respect at all for someone is calling them by their preferred name and pronouns. Refusing to do so suggests that you somehow know someone else better than they know themselves. If someone is that upset about it they can seethe elsewhere on their own time, but when interacting with someone, just use their preferred name/pronouns.
  - josteink 7y ago
    > Because one basic way of showing any respect at all for someone is calling them by their preferred name and pronouns This argument makes no sense as before knowing you, I cannot know neither your name nor “preffered pronoun”. I’m going to call you by the default pronouns defined for the default genders as established by millennia of biological and linguistic evolution. Anyone demanding everyone else to deviate from those established norms for the sake of pleasing their “personal” pronouns, are simply holding unrealistic expectations, only serving to bring themselves down.
    - journalctl 7y ago
      Sure, but I don’t really expect people to know how to refer to me before they meet me. Context provides some clues, and if they guessed then they’d probably be correct. “They/them” also works if in doubt. But presumably when you meet someone they’ll tell you what they want to be called (their name), and potentially their preferred pronouns. It’s more common in some circles than others, but all it requires is being a good listener and some humility. If you misgender someone by accident, it’s an honest mistake and that’s okay.
  - dependenttypes 7y ago
    Respect really goes both ways. I suggest this post that I personally agree with on the topic https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21092138 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21092138
- astrodust 7y ago
  It's the general pattern of Stallman going off on some obtuse point and making a mountain of out things you didn't even know were even mole-hills. It's this exhausting, endless series of crusades against these utterly ridiculous things because of some kind of poorly defined principle. Like history has decided hundreds of years ago that singular "they" is entirely appropriate, just as singular "you" is in common-use. Language changes. That's why we don't write "ye" any more, mostly because we decided to kick the letter þ (thorn, or "th") to the curb.
- eccfcco15 7y ago
  Disclaimer: I use they/them pronouns. As far as I’m concerned, there’s two ‘gender neutral concepts’, people who you don’t know the pronouns of, and people who explicitly use gender neutral pronouns. If he wanted to refer to people as per by default, I don’t care, you do you. But as soon as I tell someone that I go by they/them, I would absolutely expect them to respect that. By reading his article on pronouns, it sounds as though he likely would not do so.
least 7y ago
There are many third person pronouns that people have suggested that are not widely in use today, including singular they. Ze, zhe, per, zer, e, etc. [1] have all been proposed at various points in time (and some have resurfaced in the past several years) and there are people who identify by these pronouns. If singular 'they' is valid, then so are they (plural, referring to the alternative third person gender neutral pronouns in this case). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-person_pronoun#Preferred_pronouns https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-person_pronoun#Preferred...
- JabavuAdams 7y ago
  So ... I probably shouldn't write anything here. Anyway, in the spirit of learning and communication and respectful dialogue ... I think one of the tensions here is between people who think that providing one non-gendered pronoun is a sufficient individual vs. societal customization setting versus those who think that every(-ish) stated individual pronoun choice being mandatory is the appropriate and respectful customization setting. I first started thinking about these issues not from a trans / non-binary / fluid direction, but from the point of view of removing unnecessary gendering when it was irrelevant to the situation under discussion. So, from that perspective a single unambiguous non-gendered pronoun seemed sufficient. I wasn't looking at things in terms of providing people with fine-grained customization to express themselves. I find the desire for fine-grained gender-expression customization in tension with the desire to de-emphasize gender. But I can also see how he/she/they sounds suspiciously like he/she/other(not normal) and could be interpreted as alienating or insulting. I still don't really understand, but frankly I don't have much skin in the game. I'm half and half white/black so I've never really felt the urge to identify with either. I identify as a tennis player or scientist or programmer. We live in a society where these days lefties are not disadvantaged, although they were brutalized in the past, and I see no intense desire among lefties to identify as lefties. It makes me wonder whether, if we did not brutalize non cis-gender conforming people, would we see such intense desire for recognition and affirmation of fine-grained gender identity? But obviously we don't live in that world yet. I may have offended someone here, but I hope it's clear from my care and tone that it's not from a place of disrespect, but one of unfamiliarity and desire to understand. EDIT> By "lefties", I mean left-handed people.
throwaway877cf9 7y ago
Trans "women" at big tech companies like Google and GitHub can publicly post on their Twitter about "girl dick", post porn, go on about all the fucking degenerate BDSM furry sex they have, harass people on Twitter, talk about killing TERFs etc. and not get fired. I say one word about your precious fucking pronouns and I get my account banned. Fuck you.
throwaway877cf9 7y ago
This is the shit trans people get away with and you think your stupid fucking pronouns matter, get out of your bubble you privileged piece of shit https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/08/women-only-rape-relief-shelter-defunded-then-vandalized/ https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/08/women-only-rape-relie...

mr_woozy 7y ago

I feel emboldened to antagonistically challenge your pronouns right now, and I barely know you.

FakeComments 7y ago

You’re declaring how everyone else has to use language, but their refusal is antagonistic? Talk about entitled.

marmada 7y ago

I don't understand why his pronoun scheme is antagonistic. He still respects that you want gender neutral pronouns, he just won't use they because he thinks they has a standard plural meaning. I don't understand why people have an obligation to use "they" specifically as long as they respect the gender neutral concept.

neltnerb 7y ago
Because why wouldn't you? It's pretty minimal effort for something you want to express respect for. I have no reason to think Stallman didn't support whatever gender people in whatever roles, he seems more like a gender nihilist than anything. But it's pretty weird to spend time arguing with people about what their own personal experience is and I can see why it would make someone uncomfortable and unwelcome. It's very intrusive.
Pfhreak 7y ago
> I don't understand why people have an obligation to use "they" specifically as long as they respect the gender neutral concept. The same reason we use people's names. Or their nicknames. Or their middle names sometimes. Or their stage names, noms de plume, or noms de guerre. When you are introduced to someone you expect to be spending some time around, you might ask them, "Do you prefer Henry or Hank? Charles or Chuck? William or Bill?" And if they say, "Actually, I use my middle name, David." you wouldn't immediately say, "I'll go ahead and use your full first name because it's an equally equivalent name for you, because I'm respecting the concept of you. Culturally, we already accept a wide variety of markers for people in a host of different situations, and have generally settled on "it's polite to try and refer to people in the way they prefer." To me, it's as if RMS had posted a blog post that said, "I propose we use only people's full and legal names when referring to them, because I believe that system works better."
- newnewpdro 7y ago
  This is a false equivalence If someone upon introduction said "actually, I prefer to be addressed by '$confusing_ambiguous_overloaded_word'" then I just might use the less preferred alternative - no harm intended. The other individual's preference isn't the only thing that matters. If it bothers me to speak that way, or I find it confusing and it interferes with the flow of my own thought processes while communicating, then I'm going to respectfully fallback to the easier form. You're not some special princess that gets to interject a cache miss into my thinking every time you're referenced. You're just being a pain in the ass. When I introduce myself to people I give a variety of names and monickers of varying degrees of complexity and let them pick whatever they prefer. I have an ethnic first name, it often requires spelling it to clarify its pronunciation. So I usually give my middle initials as an alternative and get the hell on with life. I'm far more interested in the free exchange of ideas than being treated like royalty requiring that I be addressed by some awkward unnatural contortion, like honorable judge pain in everyone's ass.
- ng12 7y ago
  > "I propose we use only people's full and legal names when referring to them, because I believe that system works better." Undoubtedly a weird, outsider view of things but I wouldn't advocate him being punished for doing so. Nor would I advocate for shaming him for choosing to use people's full names in daily conversation.
journalctl 7y ago
Because one basic way of showing any respect at all for someone is calling them by their preferred name and pronouns. Refusing to do so suggests that you somehow know someone else better than they know themselves. If someone is that upset about it they can seethe elsewhere on their own time, but when interacting with someone, just use their preferred name/pronouns.
- josteink 7y ago
  > Because one basic way of showing any respect at all for someone is calling them by their preferred name and pronouns This argument makes no sense as before knowing you, I cannot know neither your name nor “preffered pronoun”. I’m going to call you by the default pronouns defined for the default genders as established by millennia of biological and linguistic evolution. Anyone demanding everyone else to deviate from those established norms for the sake of pleasing their “personal” pronouns, are simply holding unrealistic expectations, only serving to bring themselves down.
  - journalctl 7y ago
    Sure, but I don’t really expect people to know how to refer to me before they meet me. Context provides some clues, and if they guessed then they’d probably be correct. “They/them” also works if in doubt. But presumably when you meet someone they’ll tell you what they want to be called (their name), and potentially their preferred pronouns. It’s more common in some circles than others, but all it requires is being a good listener and some humility. If you misgender someone by accident, it’s an honest mistake and that’s okay.
- dependenttypes 7y ago
  Respect really goes both ways. I suggest this post that I personally agree with on the topic https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21092138 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21092138
astrodust 7y ago
It's the general pattern of Stallman going off on some obtuse point and making a mountain of out things you didn't even know were even mole-hills. It's this exhausting, endless series of crusades against these utterly ridiculous things because of some kind of poorly defined principle. Like history has decided hundreds of years ago that singular "they" is entirely appropriate, just as singular "you" is in common-use. Language changes. That's why we don't write "ye" any more, mostly because we decided to kick the letter þ (thorn, or "th") to the curb.
eccfcco15 7y ago
Disclaimer: I use they/them pronouns. As far as I’m concerned, there’s two ‘gender neutral concepts’, people who you don’t know the pronouns of, and people who explicitly use gender neutral pronouns. If he wanted to refer to people as per by default, I don’t care, you do you. But as soon as I tell someone that I go by they/them, I would absolutely expect them to respect that. By reading his article on pronouns, it sounds as though he likely would not do so.

least 7y ago

There are many third person pronouns that people have suggested that are not widely in use today, including singular they. Ze, zhe, per, zer, e, etc. [1] have all been proposed at various points in time (and some have resurfaced in the past several years) and there are people who identify by these pronouns. If singular 'they' is valid, then so are they (plural, referring to the alternative third person gender neutral pronouns in this case). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-person_pronoun#Preferred_pronouns https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-person_pronoun#Preferred...

JabavuAdams 7y ago
So ... I probably shouldn't write anything here. Anyway, in the spirit of learning and communication and respectful dialogue ... I think one of the tensions here is between people who think that providing one non-gendered pronoun is a sufficient individual vs. societal customization setting versus those who think that every(-ish) stated individual pronoun choice being mandatory is the appropriate and respectful customization setting. I first started thinking about these issues not from a trans / non-binary / fluid direction, but from the point of view of removing unnecessary gendering when it was irrelevant to the situation under discussion. So, from that perspective a single unambiguous non-gendered pronoun seemed sufficient. I wasn't looking at things in terms of providing people with fine-grained customization to express themselves. I find the desire for fine-grained gender-expression customization in tension with the desire to de-emphasize gender. But I can also see how he/she/they sounds suspiciously like he/she/other(not normal) and could be interpreted as alienating or insulting. I still don't really understand, but frankly I don't have much skin in the game. I'm half and half white/black so I've never really felt the urge to identify with either. I identify as a tennis player or scientist or programmer. We live in a society where these days lefties are not disadvantaged, although they were brutalized in the past, and I see no intense desire among lefties to identify as lefties. It makes me wonder whether, if we did not brutalize non cis-gender conforming people, would we see such intense desire for recognition and affirmation of fine-grained gender identity? But obviously we don't live in that world yet. I may have offended someone here, but I hope it's clear from my care and tone that it's not from a place of disrespect, but one of unfamiliarity and desire to understand. EDIT> By "lefties", I mean left-handed people.

throwaway877cf9 7y ago

Trans "women" at big tech companies like Google and GitHub can publicly post on their Twitter about "girl dick", post porn, go on about all the fucking degenerate BDSM furry sex they have, harass people on Twitter, talk about killing TERFs etc. and not get fired. I say one word about your precious fucking pronouns and I get my account banned. Fuck you.

throwaway877cf9 7y ago

This is the shit trans people get away with and you think your stupid fucking pronouns matter, get out of your bubble you privileged piece of shit https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/08/women-only-rape-relief-shelter-defunded-then-vandalized/ https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/08/women-only-rape-relie...