4 ms·

> Is it really that impossible to believe that someone would just prefer gendered pronouns for stylistic reasons? This kind of preference is completely believa

> Is it really that impossible to believe that someone would just prefer gendered pronouns for stylistic reasons? This kind of preference is completely believable, but I'm afraid it's also a little bit sexist. I sort of see where you are coming from ("it's just an opinion!"), but it's the awareness of the impact this has on others that is the key thing in judging whether it's a big deal. It's a little like saying "why can't I just have pictures of white people in all of our marketing materials for stylistic reasons?". If you do this, then you're implying that the other not-included group do not belong there in some way. This creates a very unpleasant feeling of 'otherness' for those who are not part of that group. This is very easy to overlook if (like me) you are a white male and have never been put in that position. It's a little like the awkwardness of being at a cocktail party where you don't know anyone, which is not a good social environment to be creating for others at work. Should be a fireable offence? Sadly, there are lots of opinions that can cause distress to others when publicly expressed. Not being able to identify them and subsequently causing damage to your relationships with coworkers and to the company culture is a sign of incompetence. I think this should be a fireable offences for that reason.

mc32 12y ago
I see what you're saying and it makes sense. I used to think that the cure for epithets was to ban them (that's how you think in grade school). But I have come to think that in some instances something becomes noticeable in the conscious only after others point them out. In other words, when people use 'she' for ships, aircraft, etc. I didn't/don't really think of them as 'female'. It's only pointing out that 'she' typically means grammatical female gender that I even think about it. So when my father would use 'she' for ships and aircraft I never thought about the pronoun implications. It was only until much later in life and seeing these issues discussed that I saw some oddity in the pronoun usage. That is, in some cases it can be that a non issue is made an issue by bringing attention to it. A kind of Streisand effect. In other words, we can be actively socialized into thinking about something thinking something typically neutral as positive or negative or inconsequential.

mc32 12y ago

I see what you're saying and it makes sense. I used to think that the cure for epithets was to ban them (that's how you think in grade school). But I have come to think that in some instances something becomes noticeable in the conscious only after others point them out. In other words, when people use 'she' for ships, aircraft, etc. I didn't/don't really think of them as 'female'. It's only pointing out that 'she' typically means grammatical female gender that I even think about it. So when my father would use 'she' for ships and aircraft I never thought about the pronoun implications. It was only until much later in life and seeing these issues discussed that I saw some oddity in the pronoun usage. That is, in some cases it can be that a non issue is made an issue by bringing attention to it. A kind of Streisand effect. In other words, we can be actively socialized into thinking about something thinking something typically neutral as positive or negative or inconsequential.