6 ms·

Empathy and courtesy have nothing to do with referring someone by generic pronouns. No one is being unempathetic by refusing to call "Joey", Joe, or not referri

Empathy and courtesy have nothing to do with referring someone by generic pronouns. No one is being unempathetic by refusing to call "Joey", Joe, or not referring to Nat by their full name, Natalie. These are all personal issues that one must deal with on their own, either by disengaging from the situation or escalating however they desire and finding a resolution amongst themselves. Pronouns are no different - if you want me to refer to you as her, and I don't, then you and I will have a problem, not you, me, the mods, my boss, the government, etc. > The ideological high horse isn't very high if one knowingly goes about hurting people to stay on it. I have heard this time and time again. If misgendering someone is hurting them in any way, I'm suspecting the solution is for that person to disengage from society, not for society to cater to that person's needs, because they will be misgendered day in and day out for the rest of their life. If someone believes they are being gangstalked, society doesn't modify itself to ensure no one within 500 meters of them has a predictable schedule.

MauranKilom 7y ago
> because they will be misgendered day in and day out for the rest of their life. If someone believes they are being gangstalked, society doesn't modify itself to ensure no one within 500 meters of them has a predictable schedule. That's no good reason to go out of your way to misgender someone or pretend to stalk someone who has that phobia. Yes, there will be problems interacting with society overall, I have no good answer for that. But I do know that knowingly and actively hurting people "because society does it too" when you could trivially avoid it is reprehensible.
- michannne 7y ago
  > But I do know that knowingly and actively hurting people "because society does it too" when you could trivially avoid it is reprehensible My argument isn't "do it because society does it too", it's we already have systems in place to give people the therapeutic treatment they need to get past issues like this, which are issues, because it is unfeasible to expect society to shape itself around coddling that person's beliefs.
  - chipotle_coyote 7y ago
    So let me get this straight: - You meet Gabrielle, and call her Gabbi. - She says "I don't like that nickname, could you use Bree?" - You say, "No, I'm going to call you Gabbi, because you should not expect society to shape itself around coddling your beliefs, GABBI." Honestly, you probably wouldn't do that, right? I mean, maybe you would, but it'd... kind of make you a jerk. It would be a stupid, stupid hill to die on. So why is it different with pronouns?
    - Gibbon1 7y ago
      > stupid hill to die on Of late I've been saying not the mole hill I'd choose to die on. Also the question what's in it for me if I'm right? If the answer is 'nothing' we're done here.
    - michannne 7y ago
      > Honestly, you probably wouldn't do that, right? No, and I never said I would, and that example does nothing for or against my argument. So making up a scenario, saying it'd make me <some negative term nobody wants to be associated with>, and asking me "If you wouldn't do X, why would you do Y?" does not sound like it will progress this discussion whatsoever
      - chipotle_coyote 7y ago
        It won't progress this discussion because you avoided engaging with the question at the end. If I ask you to use a pronoun for me that in your judgement is "incorrect," why is your judgement more important than my request? If you say, "You asked for 'he,' but you look like a 'she' to me, so I'm going to use 'she,'" then why aren't you the one being the jerk just as much as the person who insists on calling someone the wrong name?
    - atq2119 7y ago
      Pronouns are different from names because there is a very strong correlation between pronouns and certain physical aspects of people.[0] What is being asked of people in the gendering debate is to go against this correlation sometimes. Our minds are built on pattern matching and working with such correlations, so it really shouldn't be a surprise that asking people to go against it is going to tick some of them off: you're asking them to enter into a state of cognitive dissonance, which can be unpleasant. Names, on the other hand, are really quite arbitrary and independent of physical attributes. So yes, there's an important difference. [0] I believe these kinds of correlation are what people intuitively mean when they talk of biological gender and the like, which make most of the responses against this argument miss the point...
detaro 7y ago
> No one is being unempathetic by refusing to call "Joey", Joe, or not referring to Nat by their full name, Natalie. I thought not calling people nicknames they dislike had something to do with courtesy and empathy. (I'll also note that you picked very mild nicknames for your example) > if you want me to refer to you as her, and I don't, then you and I will have a problem, not you, me, the mods, my boss, the government, etc. Insisting on some level of courtesy is the moderators and the bosses job. As is enforcement if insistence isn't enough. What that level is, and what's appropriate enforcement, that's the tricky part.

MauranKilom 7y ago

> because they will be misgendered day in and day out for the rest of their life. If someone believes they are being gangstalked, society doesn't modify itself to ensure no one within 500 meters of them has a predictable schedule. That's no good reason to go out of your way to misgender someone or pretend to stalk someone who has that phobia. Yes, there will be problems interacting with society overall, I have no good answer for that. But I do know that knowingly and actively hurting people "because society does it too" when you could trivially avoid it is reprehensible.

michannne 7y ago
> But I do know that knowingly and actively hurting people "because society does it too" when you could trivially avoid it is reprehensible My argument isn't "do it because society does it too", it's we already have systems in place to give people the therapeutic treatment they need to get past issues like this, which are issues, because it is unfeasible to expect society to shape itself around coddling that person's beliefs.
- chipotle_coyote 7y ago
  So let me get this straight: - You meet Gabrielle, and call her Gabbi. - She says "I don't like that nickname, could you use Bree?" - You say, "No, I'm going to call you Gabbi, because you should not expect society to shape itself around coddling your beliefs, GABBI." Honestly, you probably wouldn't do that, right? I mean, maybe you would, but it'd... kind of make you a jerk. It would be a stupid, stupid hill to die on. So why is it different with pronouns?
  - Gibbon1 7y ago
    > stupid hill to die on Of late I've been saying not the mole hill I'd choose to die on. Also the question what's in it for me if I'm right? If the answer is 'nothing' we're done here.
  - michannne 7y ago
    > Honestly, you probably wouldn't do that, right? No, and I never said I would, and that example does nothing for or against my argument. So making up a scenario, saying it'd make me <some negative term nobody wants to be associated with>, and asking me "If you wouldn't do X, why would you do Y?" does not sound like it will progress this discussion whatsoever
    - chipotle_coyote 7y ago
      It won't progress this discussion because you avoided engaging with the question at the end. If I ask you to use a pronoun for me that in your judgement is "incorrect," why is your judgement more important than my request? If you say, "You asked for 'he,' but you look like a 'she' to me, so I'm going to use 'she,'" then why aren't you the one being the jerk just as much as the person who insists on calling someone the wrong name?
  - atq2119 7y ago
    Pronouns are different from names because there is a very strong correlation between pronouns and certain physical aspects of people.[0] What is being asked of people in the gendering debate is to go against this correlation sometimes. Our minds are built on pattern matching and working with such correlations, so it really shouldn't be a surprise that asking people to go against it is going to tick some of them off: you're asking them to enter into a state of cognitive dissonance, which can be unpleasant. Names, on the other hand, are really quite arbitrary and independent of physical attributes. So yes, there's an important difference. [0] I believe these kinds of correlation are what people intuitively mean when they talk of biological gender and the like, which make most of the responses against this argument miss the point...

detaro 7y ago

> No one is being unempathetic by refusing to call "Joey", Joe, or not referring to Nat by their full name, Natalie. I thought not calling people nicknames they dislike had something to do with courtesy and empathy. (I'll also note that you picked very mild nicknames for your example) > if you want me to refer to you as her, and I don't, then you and I will have a problem, not you, me, the mods, my boss, the government, etc. Insisting on some level of courtesy is the moderators and the bosses job. As is enforcement if insistence isn't enough. What that level is, and what's appropriate enforcement, that's the tricky part.