Pronouns

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by jfman

As long as the surname isn’t Atta it should be fine.

While I’m here I might as well say hello to all the large and small c conservatives for whom this has become their (plural, I wouldn’t want to assume) safe haven. I’m missing you in all the other threads.

Yes, in their absence, Old Boy has been forced to do a lot of the heavy lifting.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Yes, in their absence, Old Boy has been forced to do a lot of the heavy lifting.

I resemble that remark!

[spiderplant]

Originally Posted by Qtx

How does a list of the most popular names disprove my assertion that 'a surprising amount' of those people have chosen such names? I never said the majority of people.

So how many is it, and why does that surprise you? How many did you expect?

[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?

[peanut]

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?

Nope, that's your choice. Agreeing with it or disagreeing with it is a choice too. If I'd get an email saying he/him then I'd find it a bit weird as in 'a roll my eyes' and with an 'oh one of those types' but that's me. It wouldn't change anything, I treat everyone the same regardless of whatever or whoever they are. Is that wrong?

[Russ]

Originally Posted by peanut

Nope, that's your choice. Agreeing with it or disagreeing with it is a choice too. If I'd get an email saying he/him then I'd find it a bit weird as in 'a roll my eyes' and with an 'oh one of those types' but that's me. It wouldn't change anything, I treat everyone the same regardless of whatever or whoever they are. Is that wrong?

Nobody says you or anyone has to like something - there’s plenty of things in the world I don’t like. But as long as my dislike for something doesn’t come up in my professional dealings with that person, nope it certainly isn’t wrong.

An example, albeit on a different level, I can’t stand it when someone has duckface lips, pumped full of all kinds of crap. I think it looks ridiculous but the world isn’t based on what Russ likes/dislikes. And yes there are women in my office with ‘those’ lips. But I’m just as professional and friendly to them as I am to anybody else at work.

We don’t have to like everything about everyone. But just because we dislike something does not mean we have to tell everyone in a 10 mile radius.

(Not saying you do, just using context)

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.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Chris

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.

I’m with you 100% on that, and also what Jordan Peterson says about it.

Just as I believe someone can request to be referred to by any name/pronoun of their choosing, I’m strongly against any legal reinforcement of it.

I think the angle I’m coming from is when people refuse to agree to pronouns purely with the intention of being difficult for the sake of it. Being nasty for the sake of being nasty. Some people who consider themselves to be “brutally honest” seem to put more effort in to the ‘brutally’ part.

(Not that I’m suggesting you subscribe to any of the above ideas of course - in fact I’m happy to say I know you don’t)

[Qtx]

Originally Posted by spiderplant

So how many is it

Enough to surprise me and others

Originally Posted by spiderplant

why does that surprise you?

Considering how very small the amount of transgender or gender confused people there are, the amount of people choosing baby names based on such a minimal percentage is not relational in any way at all. It makes no sense to do so. Unless you want to show off to friends, much in the way many middle class peeps rescue a dog from Greece or abroad instead if locally so they have a story to tell their friends about how good they are. Only a few people do this for genuine reasons.

Originally Posted by spiderplant

How many did you expect?

Not as many. An unsurprising amount.

---------- Post added at 22:09 ---------- Previous post was at 22:04 ----------

Originally Posted by Russ

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?

You are doing it for a reason that may not exist. How many people do you communicate with by email who are trans? Its not necessarily and pandering to the smallest group.

We might as well virtue signal that we support scat lovers in our signature, so they don't think they are reviled by everyone.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Qtx

You are doing it for a reason that may not exist. How many people do you communicate with by email who are trans? Its not necessarily and pandering to the smallest group.

We might as well virtue signal that we support scat lovers in our signature, so they don't think they are reviled by everyone.

Is scat loving a protected characteristic? That’s a new one on me.

As for a “reason that may not exist”, given the number of participants in my company’s Pride Forum I think I’m in a better position than yourself to say the reason certainly does exist.

And I “pander” to nobody. I do it because being decent costs me nothing.

[Qtx]

Originally Posted by Russ

Is scat loving a protected characteristic? That’s a new one on me.

As for a “reason that may not exist”, given the number of participants in my company’s Pride Forum I think I’m in a better position than yourself to say the reason certainly does exist.

And I “pander” to nobody. I do it because being decent costs me nothing.

Putting pronouns in your signature isn't being 'decent' to anyone. Not sure who you think you are fooling with that one, maybe yourself.

If I follow other peoples thin arguments in this forum....so you know what percentage of people are gay vs being trans and figured that percentage and numbers in to the huge assumption that someone in a numberless forum must be trans and its worth everyone adding pronuns to their emails for the small possibility there might be one person there that it fits.

Scat lovers are probably in the closet but they may come out and lobby hard for equal rights and the right to be able to perform scat in public and to be recognised as scatters and expect the police to let them perform over them in the name of equality. It might become protected yet, it just takes loud non-stop lobbying as certain groups have already done.

As I said before, let people be what they want to be and respect that but trying to change society to change biological terminology and people think they are being hip for supporting some of the stupidity in the most stupid ways possible just makes the situation worse and it will end up turning people the opposite way eventually and be less accepting.

[nffc]

Originally Posted by Qtx

Putting pronouns in your signature isn't being 'decent' to anyone. Not sure who you think you are fooling with that one, maybe yourself.

If I follow other peoples thin arguments in this forum....so you know what percentage of people are gay vs being trans and figured that percentage and numbers in to the huge assumption that someone in a numberless forum must be trans and its worth everyone adding pronuns to their emails for the small possibility there might be one person there that it fits.

Scat lovers are probably in the closet but they may come out and lobby hard for equal rights and the right to be able to perform scat in public and to be recognised as scatters and expect the police to let them perform over them in the name of equality. It might become protected yet, it just takes loud non-stop lobbying as certain groups have already done.

As I said before, let people be what they want to be and respect that but trying to change society to change biological terminology and people think they are being hip for supporting some of the stupidity in the most stupid ways possible just makes the situation worse and it will end up turning people the opposite way eventually and be less accepting.

Tbf that scat argument is the most shit ive heard all week

[Qtx]

Originally Posted by nffc

Tbf that scat argument is the most shit ive heard all week

Laid that out on a plate for you....

And for the next poster

I think I’m going to be sick…. On that note. Back on topic.

[Qtx]

Originally Posted by Mick

I think I’m going to be sick…. On that note. Back on topic.

The pronouns stuff makes me sick too!

My point was a small marginalised group can make a lot of fuss and then everyone is jumping through hoops for them, well above and beyond what is acceptable.