Pronouns

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

If at the time of presentation you're asked to use a specific set of pronouns then what is the harm in using them as requested?

Why is the number of gender states so important to you that the quantity becomes preposterous ?

Sorry … nice try but no cigar.

I speak English; I refer to individuals as ‘he’ or ‘she’. This is based on a prima facie determination of an individual’s biological sex. That is normal and has been so for millennia. I understand the strategy of attempting to make the revolution appear to be the reasonable proposition, but it isn’t - most especially if it presents itself as individuals making choices about themselves but seeks ultimately to compel others to change their behaviour (in this case, their speech).

The absurdity of critical gender theory doesn’t lie in a specific number of supposed gender states but in its elevation of these psychological states above the fundamentals of human biology and the linguistic contortions required by a vast number of unaffected individuals, to accommodate it.

Ultimately critical gender theory is just another theory of self. Freud had a stab at producing one and his was wildly influential in its time, but it’s almost entirely discredited today. This too shall pass - either that or our grandchildren will be so hung up on what they are that they forget that it takes a man to fertilise a woman and a woman to birth a baby, the birth rate will fall off a cliff and the world will carry on with only those cultures that didn’t allow themselves to be so distracted.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Who refers to someone as she/ he when they're present anyway, that's ruder than mispronouning imo

Generally you don't. But if it's a speaker at an event or conference, you might read out their biography which usually includes pronouns so you don't keep repeating their name.

Originally Posted by Chris

Ultimately critical gender theory is just another theory of self. Freud had a stab at producing one and his was wildly influential in its time, but it’s almost entirely discredited today. This too shall pass - either that or our grandchildren will be so hung up on what they are that they forget that it takes a man to fertilise a woman and a woman to birth a baby, the birth rate will fall off a cliff and the world will carry on with only those cultures that didn’t allow themselves to be so distracted.

Isn't critical gender theory that of people who are sceptical of the notion that gender and sex can be different?

As for pronouns and people whose identified gender and sex don't match that predates modern gender theory. Gender Dysphoria has been a recognised medical condition for decades and we had 'transexuals'. If someone had completed transitioning would you still refer to them as their old pronoun?

It's just there was been a widening of that to encompass the idea gender can be fluid - i.e multiple states other than the binary views - and more. I'll admit I don't really follow the theory that closely or understand it that well.

But the base idea that someone's view/expression of their gender can differ from their biological sex is much older.

Originally Posted by Damien

Isn't critical gender theory that of people who are sceptical of the notion that gender and sex can be different?

No. A critical theory, in the words of the great wiki, is:

“any approach to social philosophy that focuses on reflective assessment and critique of society and culture to reveal and challenge power structures.”

Critical Gender Theory promotes its theory of gender by criticising the status quo.

I might be getting confused with 'gender-critical'

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Chris

Sorry … nice try but no cigar.

I speak English; I refer to individuals as ‘he’ or ‘she’. This is based on a prima facie determination of an individual’s biological sex. That is normal and has been so for millennia. I understand the strategy of attempting to make the revolution appear to be the reasonable proposition, but it isn’t - most especially if it presents itself as individuals making choices about themselves but seeks ultimately to compel others to change their behaviour (in this case, their speech).

The absurdity of critical gender theory doesn’t lie in a specific number of supposed gender states but in its elevation of these psychological states above the fundamentals of human biology and the linguistic contortions required by a vast number of unaffected individuals, to accommodate it.

Ultimately critical gender theory is just another theory of self. Freud had a stab at producing one and his was wildly influential in its time, but it’s almost entirely discredited today. This too shall pass - either that or our grandchildren will be so hung up on what they are that they forget that it takes a man to fertilise a woman and a woman to birth a baby, the birth rate will fall off a cliff and the world will carry on with only those cultures that didn’t allow themselves to be so distracted.

It was a question in answer to your response, i was genuinely trying to understand how you formed your view not entrap you.

Saying something has been the normal for millenia doesn't mean it will stay that way. everything is subject to change, we might not like it, we might argue against it but ultimately change wins. Desperation to cling to the status quo driven by fear or other methods often means positives that may arise are lost.

I can admit my own fallibility on the above with regards to the B word

Personally, I would think our grandchildren will have bigger fish to fry then if we refer to someone as he/she/they/it

Interesting conversation , brings the whole question of tolerance, empathy and how we only utilise it when it conforms to our beliefs

Originally Posted by Damien

I might be getting confused with 'gender-critical'

Perhaps.

Sorry for my incomplete earlier reply, due to stuff happening.

Yes, gender dysphoria is a thing. It is also (whisper it) disproportionately present in those with an autistic spectrum condition compared to the general population. As a disorder, it deserves appropriate medical treatment and management. That, however, is becoming mired in loaded terms like “conversion therapy” at the same time as others are being accused of hate speech for “misgendering” people through use of incorrect pronouns.

This is the effect of critical gender theory, which is using gender issues as just another line of attack on what are identified as “power structures”. In other words it’s one front on the culture war that those waging it are always quick to deny exists.

---------- Post added at 14:08 ---------- Previous post was at 13:56 ----------

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

It was a question in answer to your response, i was genuinely trying to understand how you formed your view not entrap you.

Saying something has been the normal for millenia doesn't mean it will stay that way. everything is subject to change, we might not like it, we might argue against it but ultimately change wins. Desperation to cling to the status quo driven by fear or other methods often means positives that may arise are lost.

I can admit my own fallibility on the above with regards to the B word

Personally, I would think our grandchildren will have bigger fish to fry then if we refer to someone as he/she/they/it

Interesting conversation , brings the whole question of tolerance, empathy and how we only utilise it when it conforms to our beliefs

Fair points all, though it appears here that you are (unconsciously I think) casting tolerance and empathy as a one-way street. Compelled speech is outlawed by the HRA for good reason. One person’s right to believe something does not demand any other person’s affirmation. I consciously do not affirm the hypothesis that there are multiple genders because I believe the arguments are loaded in pursuit of a wider social agenda that has little concern for those who are genuinely suffering a psychological disorder that deserves to be treated without social theorists watching for opportunities to scream about patriarchy, prejudice and hatred. Someone may decide they are non-binary. That’s their business - and thus far is a tolerant attitude. If however my position is to be critical of the entire framework that permits them to declare themselves non-binary, do they tolerate me responding, “live how you like, but I believe you’re mistaken?” Or do they attempt to go to law, using weasel words like “hate speech” or “-phobia” to try to circumvent a simple philosophical disagreement?

“Things always change” isn’t a convincing argument in favour of any given proposition. The proposals put by gender theorists are not inevitable. And in point of fact I think millennia of things *not* changing in this regard is very persuasive. We are being asked to believe that human power structures have somehow totally suppressed something that, if true, would be fundamental to human nature, through all recorded history and possibly for as long as humans have walked the earth. And that those working in shiny new queer studies departments in western universities have somehow only now blown the lid off it.

I find that to be staggering in its arrogance and in its lack of self awareness and humility, given the magnitude of the issues they profess to be expert in.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Chris

Perhaps.

Sorry for my incomplete earlier reply, due to stuff happening.

Yes, gender dysmorphia is a thing. It is also (whisper it) disproportionately present in those with an autistic spectrum condition compared to the general population. As a disorder, it deserves appropriate medical treatment and management. That, however, is becoming mired in loaded terms like “conversion therapy” at the same time as others are being accused of hate speech for “misgendering” people through use of incorrect pronouns.

This is the effect of critical gender theory, which is using gender issues as just another line of attack on what are identified as “power structures”. In other words it’s one front on the culture war that those waging it are always quick to deny exists.

---------- Post added at 14:08 ---------- Previous post was at 13:56 ----------



Fair points all, though it appears here that you are (unconsciously I think) casting tolerance and empathy as a one-way street. Compelled speech is outlawed by the HRA for good reason. One person’s right to believe something does not demand any other person’s affirmation. I consciously do not affirm the hypothesis that there are multiple genders because I believe the arguments are loaded in pursuit of a wider social agenda that has little concern for those who are genuinely suffering a psychological disorder that deserves to be treated without social theorists watching for opportunities to scream about patriarchy, prejudice and hatred.

“Things always change” isn’t a convincing argument in favour of any given proposition. The proposals put by gender theorists are not inevitable. And in point of fact I think millennia of things *not* changing in this regard is very persuasive. We are being asked to believe that human power structures have somehow totally suppressed something that, if true, would be fundamental to human nature, through all recorded history and possibly for as long as humans have walked the earth. And that those working in shiny new queer studies departments in western universities have somehow only now blown the lid off it.

I find that to be staggering in its arrogance and in its lack of self awareness and humility, given the magnitude of the issues they profess to be expert in.

Fair points also....

Tolerance & empathy as you say is a two way street, I'd expect someone who requested you to adhere to their pronouns to give you the same respect to something that held a deep and meaningful significance to you.

Whilst the proposals put in motion as you say are not inevitable it stands to reason that there will be a degree of resultant change, how big or significant a change? who knows. Butterflies... flapping wings... earthquakes......

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

You wouldn't, people generally ask you to use pronouns when referencing them

Slack, one of our main collaboration tools has fields for pronouns, some people fill them in, some people don't (mine are not' filled in)

Are you referring to trans people or potentially everyone?

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Are you referring to trans people or potentially everyone?

Why would i just be referring to trans people?

to add, my original post should have had in things such as email/collab tooling

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

Why would i just be referring to trans people?

to add, my original post should have had in things such as email/collab tooling

I was being a pixie to illustrate the sort of difficulty that plural pronouns can induce when such pronouns also cover the singular in trans cases.

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

Fair points also....

Tolerance & empathy as you say is a two way street, I'd expect someone who requested you to adhere to their pronouns to give you the same respect to something that held a deep and meaningful significance to you.

Whilst the proposals put in motion as you say are not inevitable it stands to reason that there will be a degree of resultant change, how big or significant a change? who knows. Butterflies... flapping wings... earthquakes......

We used to have a member on here who, in any religious thread, was always sure to repeatedly refer to the God of the Bible as a “genocidal tyrant”. As we no longer have stringent blasphemy laws in this country he was entitled to do so, and while I would occasionally attempt to engage in discussion on that point I would never challenge his right to believe, or to express that belief - despite it being somewhat offensive to me, given my wholly different understanding of who God is (to the point of going to a church to actively worship him on a weekly basis).

When I talk about human beings as “he” or “she” I’m talking about them in their immutable biological state, just as we’ve always done. I’m firmly of the view that that is the only fundamental division in the human race and it is fair and reasonable to acknowledge it. I’m not going to be offended if someone tries to correct me by asserting they are a “ze” or whatever - but I expect them to manage their sense of offence in a mature, adult manner when I politely decline to use any such terms.

A truly tolerant society is one that can find a way for very different people to live side by side without insisting their neighbour change their world view, no matter how much they might want them to. And that tolerance absolutely must flow equally in both directions, not simply in favour of whoever seems to represent the current zeitgeist.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Chris

We used to have a member on here who, in any religious thread, was always sure to repeatedly refer to the God of the Bible as a “genocidal tyrant”. As we no longer have stringent blasphemy laws in this country he was entitled to do so, and while I would occasionally attempt to engage in discussion on that point I would never challenge his right to believe, or to express that belief - despite it being somewhat offensive to me, given my wholly different understanding of who God is (to the point of going to a church to actively worship him on a weekly basis).

When I talk about human beings as “he” or “she” I’m talking about them in their immutable biological state, just as we’ve always done. I’m firmly of the view that that is the only fundamental division in the human race and it is fair and reasonable to acknowledge it. I’m not going to be offended if someone tries to correct me by asserting they are a “ze” or whatever - but I expect them to manage their sense of offence in a mature, adult manner when I politely decline to use any such terms.

A truly tolerant society is one that can find a way for very different people to live side by side without insisting their neighbour change their world view, no matter how much they might want them to. And that tolerance absolutely must flow equally in both directions, not simply in favour of whoever seems to represent the current zeitgeist.

So to cherry pick on one thing here, if a man undergoes gender reassignment surgery, are they male or female ? If the answer is male, and an individual expressed this in a workplace, then that individual would be out on their arse quick smart... considering gender reassignment is a protected characteristic

Id argue that a truly tolerant society is one whereby people are open to their view of the world changing and accept that sometimes their inherent beliefs MAY need to change.

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

So to cherry pick on one thing here, if a man undergoes gender reassignment surgery, are they male or female ? If the answer is male, and an individual expressed this in a workplace, then that individual would be out on their arse quick smart... considering gender reassignment is a protected characteristic

Id argue that a truly tolerant society is one whereby people are open to their view of the world changing and accept that sometimes their inherent beliefs MAY need to change.

Therein lies the devilish detail, though as a starting point I would refer back to my comments on gender dysphoria from earlier. It is a thing. It is a serious psychological condition and current medical opinion is that in some cases the best solution is to surgically alter the patient’s body to (superficially) represent the sex they believe they should have been born with. This is then followed up by a legal recognition, though in UK law you still only have the choice of male and female. It seems unlikely that there will ever be legal recognition of any of the other postulated gender states when academics are still arguing over exactly what they might be, and how many there are.

As I also said earlier, I’m not going out of my way to cause offence. If someone presents to me as a she, then that’s how I’ll know them - apart from anything else I have no other frame of reference by which I could make a different decision.

Turn it around though. If you got into an intimate relationship with someone who at the point it began to turn intimate turned out to be the opposite of what you expected, are you intolerant for breaking off the relationship, even though by implication you’re refusing to affirm the gender they presented to you?

Originally Posted by Chris

Therein lies the devilish detail, though as a starting point I would refer back to my comments on gender dysphoria from earlier. It is a thing. It is a serious psychological condition and current medical opinion is that in some cases the best solution is to surgically alter the patient’s body to (superficially) represent the sex they believe they should have been born with. This is then followed up by a legal recognition, though in UK law you still only have the choice of male and female. It seems unlikely that there will ever be legal recognition of any of the other postulated gender states when academics are still arguing over exactly what they might be, and how many there are.

Is this case though would you use the pronouns of their new gender?

Transmen and Transwomen by far represent the bulk of people who believe their gender doesn't match their biological sex. I know there are people who believe that there are other genders but these are a small minority within a minority.