Pronouns and References

[Akar]

Akar,

What makes a woman a full woman is having the organs to produce offspring which her body was designed for.

Is a woman who has had a hysterectomy a full woman?

What about those with Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome?

Or those with androgen insensitivity syndrome?

Or those who have gone through menopause?

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

Akar,

What makes a woman a full woman is having the organs to produce offspring which her body was designed for.

With the same logic would be men, which are impotent because of erectile dysfunction, not moving sperm, testicle cancer etc..., no real men.

Sexism at its finest.

But the usual course of such "Troll the Left/Femnazis/Woke people" threads.

[chriscase]

Try writing that sentence without them. Not possible. You're saying communication is inherently violent and should be dispensed with.

Not necessarily communication itself, just the use of names, references and other artifacts that depend on the standard notion of identity. These references define and therefore place limitations on the entities referenced. Sure it may be hard to completely overhaul our language like this, but I think human ingenuity is up to the task.

Any time someone threw a criticism of logic at you we were welcomed with cricket sounds. The thread is full of posts you're ignoring. Do you think your opinion is beyond criticism?

So is your query whether I think my opinion is beyond criticism something I can safely ignore as obviously not a serious question? For the most part I do ignore questions that appear to be entirely rhetorical.

To some extent the claim I am making is not subject to standard logical examination because one of the premises is that I do not accept some foundational logical principles such as non-contradiction and identity. That doesn't mean we must accept overtly contradictory claims, merely that there may be claims that fail to obey the principle of non-contradiction. So for instance I might have a claim "P" that I can assert does not have the truth value "True". The PNC then forces me to accept P is false, which non-PNC systems allow it also not to have the truth value "False" but perhaps another, intermediate or indeterminate value.

To the point of the OP though the role of this non (or anti) logic is simply that current PC thinking doesn't appear to value logic at all anyway when stacked against the value of the individual's purported right to (in my view, somewhat arbitrarily) decide to identify as whatever they happen to feel like being that day.

So look, if I see a person who is clearly biologically male dressed in full drag I assume that person most likely identifies as female and I can easily put on the mental hat to address them as (most likely) feminine. The opposite is a bit harder to determine because women dressed in more androgynous or masculine clothing seems to be something that's pretty common regardless of how that person identifies, so it rarely tells me much. Mostly these days I try not to address anyone at all since it seems to be a no-win situation anyway.

When someone says they want to be addressed as "them" all I can really think is it sounds like a plural so it's either a case of displaced royalty, demonic possession or plain bad grammar. I suppose it's the "non-binary" appellations that irk me the most. I've never thought of anyone as binary. I think we are all a mix of masculine, feminine, and who knows what else. But now because I accepted a conventional label out of courtesy, I've been reduced to a zero or a one.

[PointOfViewGun]

So is your query whether I think my opinion is beyond criticism something I can safely ignore as obviously not a serious question? For the most part I do ignore questions that appear to be entirely rhetorical.

To some extent the claim I am making is not subject to standard logical examination because one of the premises is that I do not accept some foundational logical principles such as non-contradiction and identity. That doesn't mean we must accept overtly contradictory claims, merely that there may be claims that fail to obey the principle of non-contradiction. So for instance I might have a claim "P" that I can assert does not have the truth value "True". The PNC then forces me to accept P is false, which non-PNC systems allow it also not to have the truth value "False" but perhaps another, intermediate or indeterminate value.

To the point of the OP though the role of this non (or anti) logic is simply that current PC thinking doesn't appear to value logic at all anyway when stacked against the value of the individual's purported right to (in my view, somewhat arbitrarily) decide to identify as whatever they happen to feel like being that day.

So look, if I see a person who is clearly biologically male dressed in full drag I assume that person most likely identifies as female and I can easily put on the mental hat to address them as (most likely) feminine. The opposite is a bit harder to determine because women dressed in more androgynous or masculine clothing seems to be something that's pretty common regardless of how that person identifies, so it rarely tells me much. Mostly these days I try not to address anyone at all since it seems to be a no-win situation anyway.

When someone says they want to be addressed as "them" all I can really think is it sounds like a plural so it's either a case of displaced royalty, demonic possession or plain bad grammar. I suppose it's the "non-binary" appellations that irk me the most. I've never thought of anyone as binary. I think we are all a mix of masculine, feminine, and who knows what else. But now because I accepted a conventional label out of courtesy, I've been reduced to a zero or a one.

A question can be entirely rhetorical and still be valid. You seem to be ignoring hell of a lot of points just to keep the narrative you're pushing alive. At this point you seem to be openly acknowledging that you are not stating something logical or sensical. Hence, the question, what valid point are you making?

[chriscase]

A question can be entirely rhetorical and still be valid. You seem to be ignoring hell of a lot of points just to keep the narrative you're pushing alive. At this point you seem to be openly acknowledging that you are not stating something logical or sensical. Hence, the question, what valid point are you making?

It's in what you just quoted. My right to self-definition trumps common logic.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Mostly these days I try not to address anyone at all since it seems to be a no-win situation anyway.

Same tbh. Especially in the workplace. I either address people by name or as a group by something generic like “team,” and I’m constantly pressured to “include my pronouns” in work related communications. The people pushing this crap are the ones in charge politically, socially and commercially across the western world, and it’s frightening how quickly they’ve conditioned people into silent compliance through fear and intimidation. As a quasi religion, it doesn’t have to make sense. You just have to obey.

[PointOfViewGun]

It's in what you just quoted. My right to self-definition trumps common logic.

Why? How?

[chriscase]

Why? How?

I'm not saying I agree with it, it's just how it is.

[PointOfViewGun]

I'm not saying I agree with it, it's just how it is.

That doesn't answer my questions. Why and how it is how it is?

[chriscase]

Who can say? It's not my world, I'm just living in it.

[PointOfViewGun]

Who can say? It's not my world, I'm just living in it.

You can if you think it is true. Otherwise you'd be de facto acknowledging that you're just making things up. So what is it?

[chriscase]

You can if you think it is true. Otherwise you'd be de facto acknowledging that you're just making things up. So what is it?

So your claim is that I:

1) Offer some supposed explanation as to why and how the current fashion is to override logic and evidence with the mandate of personal identity; OR
2) Supposedly - according to you - tacitly agree with whatever you want to say.

This seems like a false choice. I expect we both know what the current fashion is. I doubt either of us knows why.

[PointOfViewGun]

So your claim is that I:

1) Offer some supposed explanation as to why and how the current fashion is to override logic and evidence with the mandate of personal identity; OR
2) Supposedly - according to you - tacitly agree with whatever you want to say.

This seems like a false choice. I expect we both know what the current fashion is. I doubt either of us knows why.

Not exactly accurate but you seem to get the gist of it. You need some kind of coherent explanation to support why and how what you say is is. You can start with why your right to self-definition trumps common logic. You're not even attempting to which tells us that you do not even know if it does.

[chriscase]

Well fashion is "made up" as you say, just not by me.

Why is one style in fashion this year while another is terribly out of date? I couldn't say, but I still can see what people are wearing.

[chilon]

When someone says they want to be addressed as "them" all I can really think is it sounds like a plural so it's either a case of displaced royalty, demonic possession or plain bad grammar. I suppose it's the "non-binary" appellations that irk me the most.

Comments like this tell me you are either not discussing in good faith, you are excessively ignorant or a bit of both. Singular they was used for hundreds of years before Victorians wanted to unnecessarily grammar-police the English language. Even when I was a kid in the 70s-80s, teachers at my conservative Catholic elementary school would use a singular they: "Someone took my pencil but they didn't eat the donut on the desk." Its really simple as I posted earlier. If someone wants to use "they" then just use it. Otherwise, you are just an .

And it really is a bit lame that you get "irked" by something you don't understand and don't even appear to be putting a good faith effort into understanding based on your ridiculous posts.

[chriscase]

Singular they was used for hundreds of years before Victorians wanted to unnecessarily grammar-police the English language. Even when I was a kid in the 70s-80s, teachers at my conservative Catholic elementary school would use a singular they: "Someone took my pencil but they didn't eat the donut on the desk."

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.

Its really simple as I posted earlier. If someone wants to use "they" then just use it.

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.

[chilon]

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.

English has never had strict grammar police (unlike French), despite the efforts of a few Victorians that no one listened to. It's always been a living, evolving language, especially throughout the 20th century and into the 21st. So yeah, you're being willfully ignorant because I'm guessing you have neither an academic background in linguistics nor the history of English literature.

You can also assert whatever you want but you have neither proven nor even provided any meaningful support for your silly assertion that "all references are inherently violent." Out of respect I won't refer you to you by name or pronoun.

[Muizer]

OYes, 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.

Transgenderism is a phenomenon that impacts a significant % of the population, whereas until proven otherwise yours seems to be something you invented just for you and for argument's sake at that.

To resolve this apparent false equivalency one would either have to assume:

1) transgenderism is an equally random fabrication as your own proposed identity.
2) transgenderism is real and your professed identity is real.

In the latter case, please provide us with some links to research that has been done in that field, because it seems no one here but you has heard of it.

[PointOfViewGun]

Well fashion is "made up" as you say, just not by me.
Why is one style in fashion this year while another is terribly out of date? I couldn't say, but I still can see what people are wearing.

So, you don't know who made it up. You don't know how it's made up. You don't know why it's made up. You don't know when it's made up. Somehow you know it's made up. That's not how knowledge is defined.

[chriscase]

English has never had strict grammar police (unlike French), despite the efforts of a few Victorians that no one listened to.

Hey, maybe it's not too late.

It's always been a living, evolving language, especially throughout the 20th century and into the 21st. So yeah, you're being willfully ignorant because I'm guessing you have neither an academic background in linguistics nor the history of English literature.

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?

I have an idea - whenever we want to write "they/their" to reference an individual who doesn't want to be referred to using a masculine or a feminine reference, why don't we spell it "they're"? So like, "Phil wants they're own room." That way we know for sure it's a gender-indefinite singular instead of a plural. Not that it would help with spoken English.

Transgenderism is a phenomenon that impacts a significant % of the population, whereas until proven otherwise yours seems to be something you invented just for you and for argument's sake at that.

To resolve this apparent false equivalency one would either have to assume:

1) transgenderism is an equally random fabrication as your own proposed identity.
2) transgenderism is real and your professed identity is real.

In the latter case, please provide us with some links to research that has been done in that field, because it seems no one here but you has heard of it.

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.

So, you don't know who made it up. You don't know how it's made up. You don't know why it's made up. You don't know when it's made up. Somehow you know it's made up. That's not how knowledge is defined.

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.