Canadian professor under fire for refusing to use genderless pronouns

[Malthus]

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.

Good. Did anything I say put any of that in question?

"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".

Actually, it is totally different.

The sort of argument you are talking about ("if we make allowances for homosexuals to marry, soon everyone will want to marry children and animals") is known as a "slippery slope" argument. The notion is that if we allow X (which we have no argument against), we would inevitably have to allow Y (which everyone agrees is bad); therefore, we ought not to allow X.

The argument I'm making is that the very thing under discussion can be okay as long as it stays rare, but would lead to problems if it were to become common.

Also, why is something leading to more social friction automatically bad?

It isn't. Some things are worth creating social friction over ...

Allowing women to vote and homosexuals to marry led (and still leads in many places) to tons of social friction.

... and here are some good examples.

Lets just say I remain unconvinced that formal means of address fall into the same category of importance as "voting" and "marrying". I eagerly await an argument as to why being called a particular pronoun, different from the one assigned by common social convention, is a right equal in significance to (say) the right to vote.

To my mind, the purpose of using pronouns fits into such categories as "conventional language" and "forms of politeness". Now obviously, as I said before, if someone wishes a certain form of politeness, I'll use it, because doing so is polite. However, as a rule, it is to be hoped this will not catch on.

[Solmyr]

And what function is that?

You may want to ask a person whose gender is an important part of their identity, if you really want to know. Or google it. It's not my job to explain it to you. My gender is not an important part of my identity, but I recognize that there are people for whom it is, and I am able to make an effort to be nice to those people.

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?

See above.

[Solmyr]

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.

Yeah. Again, people are making more of a deal about this than it should be. Essentially, the only time this comes up is when you talk about that person to some third person. And in that case, you sure as hell can remember what pronoun they use.

[Solmyr]

Lets just say I remain unconvinced that formal means of address fall into the same category of importance as "voting" and "marrying". I eagerly await an argument as to why being called a particular pronoun, different from the one assigned by common social convention, is a right equal in significance to (say) the right to vote.

For some people it may be as important as voting and marrying is for you. Especially as such people are often bullied and ostracized due to their non-normative gender identity.

[Malthus]

Lets just say I remain unconvinced that formal means of address fall into the same category of importance as "voting" and "marrying". I eagerly await an argument as to why being called a particular pronoun, different from the one assigned by common social convention, is a right equal in significance to (say) the right to vote.

For some people it may be as important as voting and marrying is for you. Especially as such people are often bullied and ostracized due to their non-normative gender identity.

Sure, subjectively it may be just as important as the rights to vote or marry to someone. But then, so could anything. The problem with this sort of argument is that it allows for no reasonable or rational limits, or anything in the way of argument or proof.

It's the exact opposite of the arguments for (say) gay marriage. In those arguments, even people who were socialized to think gays were icky could be forced to recognize the justice of the pro-gay marriage position, because gays and those who supported their rights could point to the manifest injustice of failing to give status to a relationship that was fundamentally like straight marriage.

I cannot see the same sort of manifest injustice here. Sure, as a matter of politeness, it's a good idea to use the terms of address others want. But it is hardly a huge justice concern, just because it is subjectively important to someone. It is foolish to argue it is "just as" important as voting or marriage. Those rights have solid objective evidence of their importance behind them.

[grumbler]

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

Your memory is a poor basis for social rulemaking.  there were, in fact, specific titles associated with certain professions (or groups of professions)in any number of languages, which have been largely abandoned ("doctor' and "professor' being among the few left).

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

TBH, arguing that an issue won't be a problem because it never was a problem before the issue existed is reductio ad absurdum.  Inability to remember pronouns certainly will become an issue as the number of gender pronouns expands, just as the inability to remember all names is already almost omnipresent.  When you only had to remember whether a name was "Ugh" or "Not Ugh" the remembering-names issue didn't loom large, either.

[The Brain]

I think people who demand other people call them whatever are extra special and sensitive snowflakes that need to be lovingly nurtured, and certainly not treated like self-centered douchebags.

[Hamilcar]

I think people who demand other people call them whatever are extra special and sensitive snowflakes that need to be lovingly nurtured, and certainly not treated like self-centered douchebags.

Yeah, it's not at all a powerplay.

[viper37]

LGBTI

OK, I realize this is cliché and straight out of Patton Oswalt, but when the hell did the "I" show up?  What's the timestamp on that fucking memo, please?

There is already LGBTQIA. I say we stepped into swamp when we added T. I mean way to prove homosexuality is not associated with a mental illness.

they just keep adding letters.  will it ever stop?

[Crazy_Ivan80]

LGBTI

OK, I realize this is cliché and straight out of Patton Oswalt, but when the hell did the "I" show up?  What's the timestamp on that fucking memo, please?

There is already LGBTQIA. I say we stepped into swamp when we added T. I mean way to prove homosexuality is not associated with a mental illness.

they just keep adding letters.  will it ever stop?

when it's ABC...XYZ

[Valmy]

It's not my job to explain it to you.

Well what is your job then? What were you trying to accomplish in this conversation?

See above.

So not your job to explain concepts you introduce? Ok then.

Well at least we can agree you should be nice to people.

[Martinus]

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/09/29/student-chooses-his-majesty-after-university-offers-choice-of-personal-pronouns/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social

[Solmyr]

Sure, subjectively it may be just as important as the rights to vote or marry to someone. But then, so could anything. The problem with this sort of argument is that it allows for no reasonable or rational limits, or anything in the way of argument or proof.

It's the exact opposite of the arguments for (say) gay marriage. In those arguments, even people who were socialized to think gays were icky could be forced to recognize the justice of the pro-gay marriage position, because gays and those who supported their rights could point to the manifest injustice of failing to give status to a relationship that was fundamentally like straight marriage.

I cannot see the same sort of manifest injustice here. Sure, as a matter of politeness, it's a good idea to use the terms of address others want. But it is hardly a huge justice concern, just because it is subjectively important to someone. It is foolish to argue it is "just as" important as voting or marriage. Those rights have solid objective evidence of their importance behind them.

As I said, people who identify as some other gender than what they were assigned at birth based on their sexual organs tend to face discrimination, bullying, and stigmatization. Referring to them by a pronoun of their choosing may well be a big thing for their sense of self-worth and humanity, even if it seems unimportant to you. And again, this is hardly some sort of complicated thing that is blown out of proportion. The only place I've seen "800 different gender pronouns for special snowflakes" is in the arguments of people who oppose their use. Most people I know still use he or she (which may differ from what their birth-assigned gender would indicate), or occasionally they/them. It is really not hard to accommodate and there is no need to raise a big stink about it.

[Barrister]

Sure, subjectively it may be just as important as the rights to vote or marry to someone. But then, so could anything. The problem with this sort of argument is that it allows for no reasonable or rational limits, or anything in the way of argument or proof.

It's the exact opposite of the arguments for (say) gay marriage. In those arguments, even people who were socialized to think gays were icky could be forced to recognize the justice of the pro-gay marriage position, because gays and those who supported their rights could point to the manifest injustice of failing to give status to a relationship that was fundamentally like straight marriage.

I cannot see the same sort of manifest injustice here. Sure, as a matter of politeness, it's a good idea to use the terms of address others want. But it is hardly a huge justice concern, just because it is subjectively important to someone. It is foolish to argue it is "just as" important as voting or marriage. Those rights have solid objective evidence of their importance behind them.

As I said, people who identify as some other gender than what they were assigned at birth based on their sexual organs tend to face discrimination, bullying, and stigmatization. Referring to them by a pronoun of their choosing may well be a big thing for their sense of self-worth and humanity, even if it seems unimportant to you. And again, this is hardly some sort of complicated thing that is blown out of proportion. The only place I've seen "800 different gender pronouns for special snowflakes" is in the arguments of people who oppose their use. Most people I know still use he or she (which may differ from what their birth-assigned gender would indicate), or occasionally they/them. It is really not hard to accommodate and there is no need to raise a big stink about it.

800 may be an exagerration, but there are 5 or 6 different ones out there: one, ne, ve, ey, ze, xe, or just using "they".

Plus having personalized pronouns kind of defeats the purpose of having a pronoun in the first place.  Why not just call ze by zirs own name?

[garbon]

Sure, subjectively it may be just as important as the rights to vote or marry to someone. But then, so could anything. The problem with this sort of argument is that it allows for no reasonable or rational limits, or anything in the way of argument or proof.

It's the exact opposite of the arguments for (say) gay marriage. In those arguments, even people who were socialized to think gays were icky could be forced to recognize the justice of the pro-gay marriage position, because gays and those who supported their rights could point to the manifest injustice of failing to give status to a relationship that was fundamentally like straight marriage.

I cannot see the same sort of manifest injustice here. Sure, as a matter of politeness, it's a good idea to use the terms of address others want. But it is hardly a huge justice concern, just because it is subjectively important to someone. It is foolish to argue it is "just as" important as voting or marriage. Those rights have solid objective evidence of their importance behind them.

As I said, people who identify as some other gender than what they were assigned at birth based on their sexual organs tend to face discrimination, bullying, and stigmatization. Referring to them by a pronoun of their choosing may well be a big thing for their sense of self-worth and humanity, even if it seems unimportant to you. And again, this is hardly some sort of complicated thing that is blown out of proportion. The only place I've seen "800 different gender pronouns for special snowflakes" is in the arguments of people who oppose their use. Most people I know still use he or she (which may differ from what their birth-assigned gender would indicate), or occasionally they/them. It is really not hard to accommodate and there is no need to raise a big stink about it.

Of course, they are also wanting special treatment, a special accomodation. In specific, they want to be called by something that people wouldn't use on their own. It isn't necessarily dickish not to acquiesce to such requests.