Quote:
Originally Posted by Russ
Why does any of this matter?
After all, names are just noises we use to identify each other.
My OH is Polish and although she’s been here 15+ years and speaks English better than many British people I’ve met she still hasn’t got a complete grasp on British customs, nuances etc.
For example she finds it unusual that someone called William may want to be referred to as Bill. It doesn’t bother her in any way, just that they seem like unconnected names to her.
So if someone wants to use an apparently unconnected name or pronoun, WGAS?
On my email signature at work I have “(he/him)” after my name. Virtue signalling? Do me a favour. I do it so anyone I correspond with (in my workplace or externally) who feels unsure about revealing their chosen pronoun (hopefully) will feel a little more open and relaxed whilst dealing with me.
Is there a problem with this?
|
As our dear friend Graham used to love saying in his posts on here, when discussing personal freedom: your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose.
Of course there’s nothing wrong with someone putting pronouns on their emails if that’s what they want to do.
OTOH, compelling me to use manufactured language in order to comply with an ideology to which I do not subscribe - that is not OK. Nor is requiring my acquiescence to a world view that is, frankly, alien to human society throughout history.
The real problem here is not what someone puts in their email signature, it is that the loudest campaigners in this area are shrilly insisting that this issue defines their humanity and demanding others therefore acquiesce. Leaving aside the shaky philosophical basis for defining your entire humanity on the basis of whether you feel you’re a man, a woman, or something else, the simple fact is, compelled speech is unlawful. What these campaigners are demanding is intolerable in an open, liberal and democratic society.