4 ms·

Where's the ideological content? Some people: "let's use, of already-established pronouns, the one that doesn't make any assumptions about people" You: "no, fu

Where's the ideological content? Some people: "let's use, of already-established pronouns, the one that doesn't make any assumptions about people" You: "no, fuck you, other people's interpretation of what I say is strictly their problem, I'm gonna stick with 'he' no matter what other people feel or request, because I can" The only ideology I can see here is the absolutist sort of "nobody can even suggest to me that I change a thing" or "I can't possibly cause offense if I don't mean to, so I don't need to think about word usage."

bradleyjg 5y ago
I don’t understand how it doesn’t make assumptions about people. In the case of a generic antecedent, sure that’s fine and well established historically. But in this case there’s a known antecedent, Michael Larabel. I don’t know what Michael’s preferred pronouns are, but isn’t the original poster in this chain assuming it’s they/them and aren’t they more likely, statistically speaking, to be he/him? Why does it somehow not count as misgendering when you they/them someone that prefers he/him or she/her?
- vidarh 5y ago
  > Why does it somehow not count as misgendering when you they/them someone that prefers he/him or she/her? Because one appears to make an assumption about gender, whether or not you intended it to be taken as a generic, while the other objectively is generic. As far as options go, they/them minimises assumptions. Yes, some people might still take offence, but given that most of the people who take offence at that takes offence because they oppose inclusiveness of others, I'm perfectly fine with not respecting their choice in the matter.
  - bradleyjg 5y ago
    but given that most of the people who take offence at that takes offence because they oppose inclusiveness of others You have some evidence of this or just the unshakable certainty of the self righteous?
    - vidarh 5y ago
      I go by experience. There may be exceptions, but I've yet to see one, so I don't particularly care if there's a large pool of exceptions outside the horizon of my personal experience. If you are an exception and have a good reason for taking offence that doesn't involve excluding others, do tell.

bradleyjg 5y ago

I don’t understand how it doesn’t make assumptions about people. In the case of a generic antecedent, sure that’s fine and well established historically. But in this case there’s a known antecedent, Michael Larabel. I don’t know what Michael’s preferred pronouns are, but isn’t the original poster in this chain assuming it’s they/them and aren’t they more likely, statistically speaking, to be he/him? Why does it somehow not count as misgendering when you they/them someone that prefers he/him or she/her?

vidarh 5y ago
> Why does it somehow not count as misgendering when you they/them someone that prefers he/him or she/her? Because one appears to make an assumption about gender, whether or not you intended it to be taken as a generic, while the other objectively is generic. As far as options go, they/them minimises assumptions. Yes, some people might still take offence, but given that most of the people who take offence at that takes offence because they oppose inclusiveness of others, I'm perfectly fine with not respecting their choice in the matter.
- bradleyjg 5y ago
  but given that most of the people who take offence at that takes offence because they oppose inclusiveness of others You have some evidence of this or just the unshakable certainty of the self righteous?
  - vidarh 5y ago
    I go by experience. There may be exceptions, but I've yet to see one, so I don't particularly care if there's a large pool of exceptions outside the horizon of my personal experience. If you are an exception and have a good reason for taking offence that doesn't involve excluding others, do tell.