3 ms·

> 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

> 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.
inimino 7y ago
Just a few points to present another perspective. - RMS's main reason for introducing "per, pers, ..." was to use them in written English; this was just his own weird solution to a problem that a lot of people have noticed in modern English, the lack of a good singular pronoun for "a person" in general, without referring to anyone in particular. Lots of people have come up with crazy ideas for this, not many people are passionate enough about their use of language to write long blog posts about them, but, well, rms isn't everyone. - Using people's preferred names is a matter of common courtesy, and this has been the case pretty much for all time. People having preferred pronouns, in contrast, is relatively new, and even 50 years ago nobody would have been familiar with this idea. It would be charitable to not judge an older generation by the standards of the young when something is changing even within our lifetimes. - Insisting on using only full names would be bizarre, but surely nobody would take that as a personal attack, because presumably nobody would feel "singled out" by this. I think if you want to know if RMS was trying to antagonize non-binary folks or if he was rather just being prickly and a little eccentric about language, you would need to look further than this one idea of his. As far as I know, he is rather progressive on these issues, and he also has a history of passionately advocating unusual word choices, almost none of which have caught on, so I would lean towards this being just another example of his eccentric opinions about language, rather than trying to antagonize anyone.
- pseudalopex 7y ago
  Nobody said he was trying to antagonize nonbinary people. The problem is how he responded when people told him he had. People having preferred pronouns is a new idea in most English speaking cultures because intersex, transgender, and nonbinary identities are new ideas in most English speaking cultures. Stallman doesn't use an older generation's standard. He says we should respect other people's gender identities by using the appropriate pronouns.[1] Many people felt singled out when Facebook insisted on full and legal names, for what it's worth.[2] [1] https://stallman.org/articles/genderless-pronouns.html https://stallman.org/articles/genderless-pronouns.html [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook_real-name_policy_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook_real-name_policy_cont...
  - 7y ago

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.

inimino 7y ago

Just a few points to present another perspective. - RMS's main reason for introducing "per, pers, ..." was to use them in written English; this was just his own weird solution to a problem that a lot of people have noticed in modern English, the lack of a good singular pronoun for "a person" in general, without referring to anyone in particular. Lots of people have come up with crazy ideas for this, not many people are passionate enough about their use of language to write long blog posts about them, but, well, rms isn't everyone. - Using people's preferred names is a matter of common courtesy, and this has been the case pretty much for all time. People having preferred pronouns, in contrast, is relatively new, and even 50 years ago nobody would have been familiar with this idea. It would be charitable to not judge an older generation by the standards of the young when something is changing even within our lifetimes. - Insisting on using only full names would be bizarre, but surely nobody would take that as a personal attack, because presumably nobody would feel "singled out" by this. I think if you want to know if RMS was trying to antagonize non-binary folks or if he was rather just being prickly and a little eccentric about language, you would need to look further than this one idea of his. As far as I know, he is rather progressive on these issues, and he also has a history of passionately advocating unusual word choices, almost none of which have caught on, so I would lean towards this being just another example of his eccentric opinions about language, rather than trying to antagonize anyone.

pseudalopex 7y ago
Nobody said he was trying to antagonize nonbinary people. The problem is how he responded when people told him he had. People having preferred pronouns is a new idea in most English speaking cultures because intersex, transgender, and nonbinary identities are new ideas in most English speaking cultures. Stallman doesn't use an older generation's standard. He says we should respect other people's gender identities by using the appropriate pronouns.[1] Many people felt singled out when Facebook insisted on full and legal names, for what it's worth.[2] [1] https://stallman.org/articles/genderless-pronouns.html https://stallman.org/articles/genderless-pronouns.html [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook_real-name_policy_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook_real-name_policy_cont...
- 7y ago