Canadian professor under fire for refusing to use genderless pronouns

[Solmyr]

So? Anything can be part of a person's identity. Being a blacksmith was part of many people's identities but the world moved on.

I don't recall anyone back in those days arguing that we should erase all professions and just have one.

Hey you are the one who said the only reason I would fuck this up is because I am intentionally being an asshole. How lovely.

Tbh, inability to remember names and pronouns is somewhat of a rare case.

[Valmy]

You are acting hysterical.

Not really. I thought I was just having a calm conversation about the merits of these new gender conventions. If you think I am hysterical that is in your own mind.

I mean you are the primary person who shaped my views on this subject. You have talked about expanding gender, which is what you claim gays and lesbians have tried to do or perhaps retiring it as a concept. I found your arguments convincing. Have you changed your opinion on this?

[garbon]

You are acting hysterical.

Not really. I thought I was just having a calm conversation about the merits of these new gender conventions. If you think I am hysterical that is in your own mind.

I mean you are the primary person who shaped my views on this subject. You have talked about expanding gender, which is what you claim gays and lesbians have tried to do or perhaps retiring it as a concept. I found your arguments convincing. Have you changed your opinion on this?

You are the one who keeps resorting to foul language.

And no, I've not changed my views. However, I see no fundamental clash with allowing people to be addressed how they want. Similarly I've no reason to doubt people who choose that they are some other sort of gender, even if in my own world view I don't really understand the desire to retrench gender or even further stratify it.

[Valmy]

Fortunately, this is not a problem and I doubt it will ever be.

Maybe. But the concept is still very un-mainstream and in its infancy.

I don't recall anyone back in those days arguing that we should erase all professions and just have one.

That was not really what I was going for there. Is something intrinsically important just because somebody has an identity wrapped up in it? What important function does gender serve that requires it be preserved and expanded?

Tbh, inability to remember names and pronouns is somewhat of a rare case.

I disagree. I have met many people who have asserted they have a hard time remembering people's names. In fact society has done alot to loosen many of the formerly very important traditions of etiquette and protocol which, formerly, if one failed to remember one might unintentionally give offense. This is precisely because it is burdensome.

[Valmy]

You are the one who keeps resorting to foul language.

I did? My apologies.

And no, I've not changed my views. However, I see no fundamental clash with allowing people to be addressed how they want.

I completely agree and I have said so. I am talking about the concept and the social philosophy here. It only came up because it was asserted it was not hard or burdensome. I disagreed. I think it can be. But I will certainly do my best.

Similarly I've no reason to doubt people who choose that they are some other sort of gender, even if in my own world view I don't really understand the desire to retrench gender or even further stratify it.

I completely agree. I was just stating my opinion on a subject I thought we were discussing, not telling somebody who chose another gender that they are wrong. Have I ever called Buddha anything but her preferred pronoun? Never.

[Malthus]

I have never in my life met anyone who wanted a different form of address. If I did, I'd accommodate them of course: the goal of politeness is, after all, to avoid unnecessary social friction. However, if it became a common thing (rather than a vanishing rarity) it would make social communication more awkward than necessary, and so hopefully it will not catch on.

It is easy to remember X, who is the only one you know who insists on a special pronoun. It will become more difficult and awkward if the number wanting a special form of address increases beyond the rare.

Fortunately, this is not a problem and I doubt it will ever be.

Well, sure. Because this trend will probably die out before it has a chance to spread beyond university students going through their "we are all special snowflakes, look at us" stage, which is (so far at least) the only context I've ever heard the notion mentioned. 

What I'm saying is that it is easy to tolerate and accommodate a very rare case, but if it became the norm it would be awkward. Some people will know X's choice of special term, some would not; so X will be confronted every day with either (1) correcting people he meets a lot; or (2) letting it pass, meaning X will get referred to by the wrong pronoun a lot.

Those who refer to X by the wrong pronoun, and later find out their mistake, get to feel awkward about it; doubly so if by chance they pull a Valmy (sorry  ) and forget they have been "informed" before. Now they wonder if X thinks they are being a deliberate asshole or not.

In short, were this practice to become widespread, it accomplishes the opposite of the usual goal of politeness - it leads to more social friction, awkwardness, and bad feelings than necessary. Therefore, it is not to be encouraged.

[Razgovory]

It is a bit irritating that every few years people try to redefine words and concepts and then become indignant and try to shame anyone who doesn't conform to the new standard.

[Valmy]

doubly so if by chance they pull a Valmy (sorry  ) and forget they have been "informed" before.

Oh I would. And I would feel bad about it.

[Solmyr]

That was not really what I was going for there. Is something intrinsically important just because somebody has an identity wrapped up in it? What important function does gender serve that requires it be preserved and expanded?

It obviously serves an important function to people who want to identify as a particular gender. Who are you to say that it's not important?

I disagree. I have met many people who have asserted they have a hard time remembering people's names. In fact society has done alot to loosen many of the formerly very important traditions of etiquette and protocol which, formerly, if one failed to remember one might unintentionally give offense. This is precisely because it is burdensome.

I'm sure a distinction can be made between people with crappy memory and people who flatly refuse to admit that there are more than two genders and to accommodate a person who may be already suffering from bullying and societal belittlement. The former, like yourself, can be excused. The latter, like the professor in the article, are just assholes who should be ignored and ridiculed.

[Solmyr]

Well, sure. Because this trend will probably die out before it has a chance to spread beyond university students going through their "we are all special snowflakes, look at us" stage, which is (so far at least) the only context I've ever heard the notion mentioned. 

What I'm saying is that it is easy to tolerate and accommodate a very rare case, but if it became the norm it would be awkward. Some people will know X's choice of special term, some would not; so X will be confronted every day with either (1) correcting people he meets a lot; or (2) letting it pass, meaning X will get referred to by the wrong pronoun a lot.

Those who refer to X by the wrong pronoun, and later find out their mistake, get to feel awkward about it; doubly so if by chance they pull a Valmy (sorry  ) and forget they have been "informed" before. Now they wonder if X thinks they are being a deliberate asshole or not.

In short, were this practice to become widespread, it accomplishes the opposite of the usual goal of politeness - it leads to more social friction, awkwardness, and bad feelings than necessary. Therefore, it is not to be encouraged.

As I mentioned, I have several friends who identify as a different gender than they were assigned at birth, including something other than purely male or female. Many of them are not in the university, and all of them are normal, productive, reasonable people.

"This may become too prevalent" is the same kind of argument as "if we make allowances for homosexuals to marry, soon everyone will want to marry children and animals". Also, why is something leading to more social friction automatically bad? Allowing women to vote and homosexuals to marry led (and still leads in many places) to tons of social friction.

[Barrister]

I've always believed that you should call people what they want to be called.  So if a very masculine person says their name is Sue I'll call them Sue.

But until and unless there becomes some kind of recognized recognized intersexual pronoun I just can't see having to remember specific pronouns for specific people.  If presented with such a person I think I would decline to call that person nem/hir/zir.  I don't think I'd be an asshole about it - I just would not use pronouns and always use the person's name.

[Razgovory]

Okay, I must have missed it, so could someone tell me when it was proven that there were more than two genders and that gender is spectrum?

[celedhring]

Tbf it would be hard for me not to default to he/she out of habit, but I would try to accommodate. It's really not that a big deal. If somebody wants to get called in a particular way, it seems a bit assholish to turn it into a cause célèbre.

[Zanza]

Is this just for the third person or for second as well? When you address someone of a special gender, you would still use "you" right? So it's only when you talk about them.

[Valmy]

It obviously serves an important function to people who want to identify as a particular gender. Who are you to say that it's not important?

A person who is having a discussion about it. Who is somebody to say it is important?

And what function is that?

As I mentioned, I have several friends who identify as a different gender than they were assigned at birth, including something other than purely male or female.

I do not know what it means to be purely male or purely female. What is the social value of making that kind of distinction?

"This may become too prevalent" is the same kind of argument as "if we make allowances for homosexuals to marry, soon everyone will want to marry children and animals". Also, why is something leading to more social friction automatically bad? Allowing women to vote and homosexuals to marry led (and still leads in many places) to tons of social friction.

I think those arguments were countered with very logical and convincing replies.