Pronouns and References

[PointOfViewGun]

Well I will admit it's probably pretty hard to accumulate knowledge without trusting in logical foundations like identity and non-contradiction. On the other hand if you are asking for evidence that there is a significant language mandate being enforced regarding gendered pronouns and references, you need look no farther than this thread.

Trust in logical foundations of any kind is not the issue here. It is apparent that you are relying on lazy cop outs to deny failure of your premise. What we have to determine now is why you think this game devoid of any intelligent thought is necessary to establish your premise. Do you have no faith in the merits of your premise?

[chriscase]

Sorry, which premise are you referring to?

[PointOfViewGun]

Sorry, which premise are you referring to?

Yours.

[chriscase]

Sorry, I don't really have one. If you are referring to the identity definition I raised, what I'm doing is removing some axioms. That's not a premise, but a lack of some.

[chilon]

Hey, maybe it's not too late.

OK, but if you need an advanced degree in linguistics or literature for something not to sound dumb, maybe your academic pursuits have reduced your perspective.

So seriously, "Phil wants their own room at the hotel" sounds good to you?

It sounds perfectly fine to me. As the example I gave earlier, "they" has a long been used as a singular pronoun particularly when gender is unknown. Considering non-binary individuals don't identify with either traditional male or female genders, it is perfectly logical for many to prefer to use "they/them" as their pronouns. Although, some non-binary individuals prefer new pronouns like "ze."

The fact that English easily incorporates words from other languages, adopts colloquialisms into standardized English, and accommodates new technological and cultural shifts along with jargon and slang is precisely what makes it such a powerful, widely used, and long-lasting language with no language/grammar police subjectively determining from the top-down what should and shouldn't be used.

Again, it really goes back to my original post in this thread. If someone prefers to use they/them, then it's simply basic human decency and respect to use the words they prefer to use. Of course, you don't *have* to use those words but not doing so, irrespective of how it sounds to you subjectively, shows a lack of basic human decency and respect. Putting your own personal notions of proper grammar above basic human decency and respect seems like the absolute wrong choice to me but you do you I guess.

[PointOfViewGun]

Sorry, I don't really have one. If you are referring to the identity definition I raised, what I'm doing is removing some axioms. That's not a premise, but a lack of some.

You don't? Then you have no assertion or argument. Do you understand what a premise is?

[chriscase]

You don't? Then you have no assertion or argument. Do you understand what a premise is?

Aw, I can see you really want me to have a premise. OK how about this:

Suppose we don't assume the law of identity and carry that as a personal philosophy into an identity-laden topic such as gender pronouns.

[Akar]

Aw, I can see you really want me to have a premise.

Soooooo... you're admitting that you have no premise?

I can't believe this bad faith thread has gotten to 5 pages.

[chriscase]

So nice of you to drop in!

Formally what I'm suggesting is the removal of some axioms. Since they are axioms, we have granted up front they are assumed with no proof. It's perfectly natural to wonder what would happen if one of more of those axioms was not assumed to be true. I wouldn't really call it a premise though, since it's more removing something we conventionally assume to be true as opposed to asserting something. None of this is particularly new in the context of mathematics and formal logic.

I'm just taking it into the world of personal philosophy which is arguably a category error but does dovetail well enough with my other point which is about the absurdity of assuming communication can be completely overridden by some notion of individual self-determination. There's no reason why I would have to take issue with all names and references and view them as inherently violent, even if I doubt the laws of identity. I just do. And that's my right. Right?

[Pontifex Maximus]

Pronouns and references: the modern theory that solipsism is the dominant and most important component of our culture. So boring and intellectually bankrupt.

[Cyclops]

OK, but that's a case there the gender of the reference is deliberately indeterminate. How about "Bobby went to the kitchen and made their breakfast." Whose breakfast was Bobby making? Or, "Phil wants their own special pronoun." Just sounds like bad grammar to me.

Yes, this is the prevailing fashion. I demand not to be referred to by name or pronouns. I assert that all references are inherently violent and therefore abhorrent. Unless you are going to apply a double standard, you have to respect my preference, regardless of reason.

If you don't want to be referred to, then don't post. If you don't offer a way to speak to you one will be provided, as you exist and therefore owe taxes.

I feel like you're stirring the pot, fair enough. Pots are meant to be stirred. The "their" as a pronoun example is weak, it suggest poor language skills.

If you are genuine that its uncomfortable to say "they" instead of he or she, harden up. Have a think about how uncomfortable someone would have to be to ask you to do that.

You've got to deal with a lot of people in this world. Furries that want to bang animals, crooked politicians who fly to Paedo island with Epstein, but you're devoting your mental space to pronouns.

[PointOfViewGun]

Aw, I can see you really want me to have a premise. OK how about this:
Suppose we don't assume the law of identity and carry that as a personal philosophy into an identity-laden topic such as gender pronouns.

What I desire has no relevance here. Only what you're able to argue. Your take on the subject shows us that you are not able to exactly pin point what a premise is. Have you successfully argued that the law of identity is not valid though?

[Muizer]

OK but I don't object to transgenderism. I don't even object to calling a guy who dresses like a woman "she" and a woman who dresses like a man "him". I am balking at the "they/their" thing because I guess it just sounds wrong to me. But more to the point I object to this idea that if I do find some new grammatical maneuver awkward and arbitrary, the answer to me is "just do it, you have no right to question it." To me this is somewhat absurd, and apparently I'm not entirely alone in that sentiment.

I'm afraid most people who balk at the use of the word "they" for trans people actually balk at having to say goodbye to the binary world "God intended", not at the choice of the word per se.

As for that specific choice for "they", it may be arbitrary but not in the sense that "if that is a thing, everyone might as well choose whatever they want for themselves". On the contrary, it's part of consensus forming process.

[chriscase]

Have you successfully argued that the law of identity is not valid though?

Proving an axiom is a fool's errand. I'm afraid this isn't going your way.

[PointOfViewGun]

Proving an axiom is a fool's errand. I'm afraid this isn't going your way.

You got it backwards. You have to disprove an axiom since your premise relies on defiance of established facts. Are you unable to do that?

[Lord Thesaurian]

I'm afraid most people who balk at the use of the word "they" for trans people actually balk at having to say goodbye to the binary world "God intended", not at the choice of the word per se.

Quite the opposite. To borrow your reference, if an elite minority suddenly demanded everyone start capitalizing pronouns in reference to God (He, Him) in order to make monotheists feel safer and more accepted by secular society, the outcry would be swift and near unanimous, especially if people get fired from their jobs or thrown in jail for refusing to comply. Yet when it comes to transgenderism, its arbitrary, quasi-religious precepts are enforced with dogmatic conviction. As we’ve see in this thread, one either accepts those precepts without question, or otherwise is a bad person, acting in bad faith, bigoted, etc.

As for that specific choice for "they", it may be arbitrary but not in the sense that "if that is a thing, everyone might as well choose whatever they want for themselves". On the contrary, it's part of consensus forming process.

This simply isn’t true. If transgender identity and pronoun use is a matter of personal belief, consensus has nothing to do with that belief. If the consensus is to refer to me as “he, him” by default, and I have to “correct” everyone that I am to be called, “they, them,” I am deliberately going against consensus to demand everyone abide by my personal belief.

[chriscase]

If you don't want to be referred to, then don't post. If you don't offer a way to speak to you one will be provided, as you exist and therefore owe taxes.

Well strictly speaking if you recall the OP I said I did not accept the axiomatic definition of either identity or existence. So you can't necessarily assert that I exist unless you want to disrespect my personal philosophy.

I feel like you're stirring the pot, fair enough. Pots are meant to be stirred. The "their" as a pronoun example is weak, it suggest poor language skills.

Back when I was a self-identified progressive in college (late 80s/early 90s) some of us were playing with the idea of "per" as a non-gendered pronoun. I dunno, none of these ideas seem to go anywhere. At least, nowhere that sounds like adequate language, much less beautiful.

If you are genuine that its uncomfortable to say "they" instead of he or she, harden up. Have a think about how uncomfortable someone would have to be to ask you to do that.

You know, if the people I'm interacting with fit that description I think I'd be a lot more understanding. My "sense" is that it's more a group of youngsters who have figured out yet another way to make the adults in the room run around in circles. But that's teenagers, they are liable to drive you crazy in one way or another.

You've got to deal with a lot of people in this world. Furries that want to bang animals, crooked politicians who fly to Paedo island with Epstein, but you're devoting your mental space to pronouns.

The other day I walked into my kitchen to make coffee and stepped right into a pile of dog feces. Why wasn't I looking out for dog ? Not sure, but the issue did occupy my mental space for some time afterward.

You got it backwards. You have to disprove an axiom since your premise relies on defiance of established facts. Are you unable to do that?

If an axiom could be proven or disproven, it wouldn't be an axiom. This isn't something I made up, nor is it controversial to anyone familiar with modern mathematics or formal logic.

[PointOfViewGun]

If an axiom could be proven or disproven, it wouldn't be an axiom. This isn't something I made up, nor is it controversial to anyone familiar with modern mathematics or formal logic.

Then perhaps what you're referring to is not an axiom. You're merely trying to cop out by calling it an axiom so that you can avoid producing any argument. You seem to be unable to even define the parameters of your claims.

[chriscase]

Again, it's not me who defined these axioms. They are well established as axioms. The practice of exploring what happens when we drop axioms is also well established. Nothing particularly controversial here, except apparently to you.

[PointOfViewGun]

Again, it's not me who defined these axioms. They are well established as axioms. The practice of exploring what happens when we drop axioms is also well established. Nothing particularly controversial here, except apparently to you.

And you have been unable to define them yourself. Not to reinvent them of course, but merely to explain them. What's especially troubling for you is that in the previous two posts you exposed your premise as hypocritical as you cowered behind some axioms to argue against me while defying others. Didn't call any of that controversial either. It would give too much credit to your charade to call it controversial.