4 ms·

> In reality, I think the likely scenario is more like "I'm a she :)", and unless you continue to use 'he' pronouns then there isn't a problem. This is flatly

> In reality, I think the likely scenario is more like "I'm a she :)", and unless you continue to use 'he' pronouns then there isn't a problem. This is flatly contradicted by both Caleb's post (upon which this whole thread is based) and Monica's. Caleb resigned because the new rules proposed would not allow him to compromise by simply referring to trans people by name and avoiding all pronouns. His issue is not that he insists on using "he" for a transwoman, but that he refuses to use "she", and would rather stick to names. Likewise, per the from-memory transcript she posted, Monica - who has no issue referring to a person who has changed gender by their preferred gendered pronoun! - simply stated that she often prefers to avoid the singular genderless "they" when referring to a specific person, and so would prefer to refer to a person who has that as their preferred pronoun by name. That, apparently, was enough to get her fired.

jasonvorhe 7y ago
Then why don't they just use the pronouns the persons chose and communicated to address them?
- kilo_bravo_3 7y ago
  Because they are jerks. And they think that "freedumb" and "freeze peach" means that if people they voluntarily and freely associate with decide to call them out on their jerkiness, then it is they who have been aggrieved and had their rights trampled upon. There are only two types of people who are unable to address others in a manner that makes that person feel comfortable: 1. Jerks 2. People who aren't native speakers of the language being used.
  - reggintoggaf 7y ago
    Address me as Hitler Was Right from now or you're a jerk and bigot. While the whole 'hate speech' concept does have its issues, it's still only about what you say, not what you don't say. What is debated here is actually compelling speech, forcing someone to say specific things or be punished. This is not covered by hate speech concept/laws, and firmly puts its proponents on the level of medieval Church.
- vnth93 7y ago
  Apparently the person was concerned that this would allow people to control any narrative they want. For example he suggested that nobody should have to be obligated to acknowledged him as, say, a Christian. I genuinely dont know if this is a good equivalence.
  - horsawlarway 7y ago
    I actually think it's a very strong equivalence. Both are self selected descriptors which could be reasonably objected to without denigrating or disrespecting the person specifically. Removing the ability to engage in thoughtful conversation where parties disagree is a travesty. I'll be blunt - as a strong atheist, I'm in full agreement with the moderator who posted this. I personally don't agree with his opinions on gender pronouns, but I think his point stands loud and clear: Respectful disagreement is no longer allowed. I think that is especially poignant given the community he moderates almost certainly aligns with his views. I believe many of the communities that press these gender issues are broken. Not because I care about "pronouns" but because when disagreement with the majority opinion is IN ITSELF considered an insult worthy of exclusion or derision, there is no longer any apparatus to allow honest discussion. I have the same opinion of the most restrictive church communities. The mental process is the same - Disagreement is threatening, remove the threat through ostracism and social pressure instead of honest conversation. Fuck that. Fuck that on both sides.
    - vnth93 7y ago
      I guess it is equivalent in some ways. In modern society we don't really see religion as fundamental to personhood, or perhaps not to the extent of gender. And many would argue that a person do not choose their gender, although since I'm also not religious, I can't tell if religious people see themselves as "choosing" their religion or not. As for respectful disagreement, far as I can tell, concerning pronouns, if people see discussion as tantamount to disrespect, it is often because they believe that the overwhelming majority of people who insist on pronouns should be taken in good faith. There will always be people who use discussion as an excuse to in fact disrespect. It is a difficult issue and I really don't know what to think.
- XCabbage 7y ago
  Who? In the case of Caleb, I assume because he has a religious objection to it - he thinks that a person cannot alter truly the gender given to them by God, and thinks it would be against his faith to use pronouns in a manner that implies otherwise. Though I may be misstating his view, in which case I apologise to him - I have not seen anything he's written where he spells out the basis for his objection, and may be guessing / inferring wrongly. In the case of Monica, she would in fact do this in all but maybe a situation involving the singular they where she might prefer stylistically to use names (which seems fair enough, since it's clearer).

jasonvorhe 7y ago

Then why don't they just use the pronouns the persons chose and communicated to address them?

kilo_bravo_3 7y ago
Because they are jerks. And they think that "freedumb" and "freeze peach" means that if people they voluntarily and freely associate with decide to call them out on their jerkiness, then it is they who have been aggrieved and had their rights trampled upon. There are only two types of people who are unable to address others in a manner that makes that person feel comfortable: 1. Jerks 2. People who aren't native speakers of the language being used.
- reggintoggaf 7y ago
  Address me as Hitler Was Right from now or you're a jerk and bigot. While the whole 'hate speech' concept does have its issues, it's still only about what you say, not what you don't say. What is debated here is actually compelling speech, forcing someone to say specific things or be punished. This is not covered by hate speech concept/laws, and firmly puts its proponents on the level of medieval Church.
vnth93 7y ago
Apparently the person was concerned that this would allow people to control any narrative they want. For example he suggested that nobody should have to be obligated to acknowledged him as, say, a Christian. I genuinely dont know if this is a good equivalence.
- horsawlarway 7y ago
  I actually think it's a very strong equivalence. Both are self selected descriptors which could be reasonably objected to without denigrating or disrespecting the person specifically. Removing the ability to engage in thoughtful conversation where parties disagree is a travesty. I'll be blunt - as a strong atheist, I'm in full agreement with the moderator who posted this. I personally don't agree with his opinions on gender pronouns, but I think his point stands loud and clear: Respectful disagreement is no longer allowed. I think that is especially poignant given the community he moderates almost certainly aligns with his views. I believe many of the communities that press these gender issues are broken. Not because I care about "pronouns" but because when disagreement with the majority opinion is IN ITSELF considered an insult worthy of exclusion or derision, there is no longer any apparatus to allow honest discussion. I have the same opinion of the most restrictive church communities. The mental process is the same - Disagreement is threatening, remove the threat through ostracism and social pressure instead of honest conversation. Fuck that. Fuck that on both sides.
  - vnth93 7y ago
    I guess it is equivalent in some ways. In modern society we don't really see religion as fundamental to personhood, or perhaps not to the extent of gender. And many would argue that a person do not choose their gender, although since I'm also not religious, I can't tell if religious people see themselves as "choosing" their religion or not. As for respectful disagreement, far as I can tell, concerning pronouns, if people see discussion as tantamount to disrespect, it is often because they believe that the overwhelming majority of people who insist on pronouns should be taken in good faith. There will always be people who use discussion as an excuse to in fact disrespect. It is a difficult issue and I really don't know what to think.
XCabbage 7y ago
Who? In the case of Caleb, I assume because he has a religious objection to it - he thinks that a person cannot alter truly the gender given to them by God, and thinks it would be against his faith to use pronouns in a manner that implies otherwise. Though I may be misstating his view, in which case I apologise to him - I have not seen anything he's written where he spells out the basis for his objection, and may be guessing / inferring wrongly. In the case of Monica, she would in fact do this in all but maybe a situation involving the singular they where she might prefer stylistically to use names (which seems fair enough, since it's clearer).