http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/news/canada/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/u-of-t-professor-attacks-political-correctness-in-video-refuses-to-use-genderless-pronouns
QuoteU of T professor attacks political correctness, says he refuses to use genderless pronouns
Sean Craig
Wednesday, Sept. 28, 2016
Professor Jordan Peterson claims that the University of Toronto is attempting to transform its human resources department into "a politically correct institution." Michael Peake/Postmedia/File
TORONTO — As part of an hour-long YouTube lecture on political correctness, University of Toronto professor and clinical psychologist Jordan Peterson is objecting to the Trudeau government's Bill C-16, which proposes to outlaw harassment and discrimination based on gender identity and gender expression under the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code.
Peterson, a white male in his mid 50s, also decries what he claims are attempts by the university to transform its human resources department into "a politically correct institution."
The news was first reported by the University of Toronto student newspaper, The Varsity.
Gender identity is defined by the Ontario Human Rights Commission as "each person's internal and individual experience of gender. It is their sense of being a woman, a man, both, neither, or anywhere along the gender spectrum." The commission defines gender expression as "how a person publicly presents their gender," which can include behaviour and outward appearance such as dress, hair, make-up, body language and voice, as well as a person's name and the pronouns they use.
Peterson is critical of these terms and their definitions as outlined by the commission, and compares the changes Bill C-16 would bring about to the policing of expression in "totalitarian and authoritarian political states."
He also argues against the existence of non-binary gender identities, or those that are not exclusively masculine or feminine, saying "I don't think there's any evidence for it."
Peterson said that if a student asked him to be referred to by a non-binary pronoun, he would not recognize their request: "I don't recognize another person's right to determine what pronouns I use to address them. I won't do it."
Peterson told the National Post that he decided to make the video and go public with his views after receiving a memo from university HR outlining new mandatory anti-racist and anti-bias training. "That disturbs me because if someone asked me to take anti-bias training, I think I am agreeing that I am sufficiently racist or biased to need training," he said in an interview.
Peterson also said he doesn't believe there is sufficient research to show these kind of HR practices, which he said may constitute "psychological intervention," are effective.
He said he is concerned the university is consulting groups like the Black Liberation Collective on campus policy matters, noting he respects their right to exist and protest, but questioning their credentials to offer expert opinion. "I have no problem with them, people can organize themselves however they want, but I have an issue with U of T considering them a legitimate policy advisor," he said. "I don't think there is any evidence U of T is a racist university. I think we have done an extraordinary job of building a multi-racial and multi-ethnic university and community, better so than almost all schools."
"The pronoun issue is straightforward," added Peterson. "I won't mouth the words of ideologues, because when you do that you become a puppet for their ideology." The professor said he believes the writing in the Ontario Human Rights Commission's terms and definitions is in his view "incoherent, over-inclusive and all encompassing" and has had a disproportionate impact on language used by other government bodies, including the federal Department of Justice. He said he fears Bill C-16 could lead to legal action against legitimate discussion and research on gender and sexuality, including research on the "biological origins of gender."
However, a legal expert says the proposed legislation will advance human rights from a practical and symbolic standpoint. "Bill C-16 is important and plays a practical role because it will allow trans people a means with which to seek redress under the law," said Kyle Kirkup, a professor at the University of Ottawa Faculty of Law who specializes in laws regulating contemporary norms of gender identity and sexuality. "It also plays the symbolic function of letting trans people know that the government recognizes them."
And a colleague at U of T said that Peterson is wrong in his assumptions and is failing to live up to his responsibilities as a faculty member. "All that is necessary to invalidate a faulty claim is one counterexample," said physics professor A.W. Peet. "Here, I am that counterexample. I openly defy Peterson by existing: I am nonbinary and transgender."
Peet said that, while Peterson has a right to free speech, he is held to a higher standard as a professor, which includes a professional duty of care for the entire student body: "I refuse to stand by and just let him hurt vulnerable genderqueer members of the university community... Academic freedom was never intended to be used as a general-purpose shield against professorial accountability."
"If Peterson fears the Trudeau government passing Bill C-16 into law, he should smarten up his act by upgrading his ethics circuits, not by trying to marshal opposition to basic human rights protections for people he refuses to even try to understand," added Peet.
The University of Toronto said there have been no formal complaints about Peterson's video lecture. "If we do receive any we will consider them through our policies, which are consistent with provincial legislation," said spokesperson Althea Blackburn-Evans.
"Universities are places where people exchange ideas and have different opinions," she added. "Discussion and debate happen at U of T every day."
Blackburn-Evans noted that Professor Peterson's views are his own, and that "all members of our community are expected to comply with U of T's policies and guidelines around creating a teaching and learning environment that is free from discrimination and harassment on any of the prohibited grounds."
In his video, Peterson suggests the "overrepresentation of social justice warrior-type activists" in government may have impacted the tabling of legislation, noting also "our current Premier (Kathleen Wynne) is lesbian in her sexual preference." He goes on to claim the LGBTI community "has become extraordinarily good at organizing themselves and has a fairly pronounced and very, very sophisticated radical fringe."
Peterson, who is an expert on personality and the psychology of religion, joined the University of Toronto in 1998. Prior to that he taught at Harvard University.
QuotePeterson, who is an expert on personality and the psychology of religion,
So he knows precisely what he's doing :lol:
TROLL: ACCOMPLISHED
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 29, 2016, 05:18:33 PM
QuotePeterson, who is an expert on personality and the psychology of religion,
So he knows precisely what he's doing :lol:
TROLL: ACCOMPLISHED
:lol:
I'm listening to his talk on yt right now, and I don't think he has a sense of irony.
If someone ever asks me for my "preferred pronoun", I'll say "my lord".
god, god's if you will.
Though I would prefer a genderless pronoun to having to learn 800 pronouns for each new special gender.
Quote from: Valmy on September 29, 2016, 05:24:23 PM
god, god's if you will.
Though I would prefer a genderless pronoun to having to learn 800 pronouns for each new special gender.
I have started using "it". Since I can't tell who I might be dehumanizing with a particular pronoun, I have decided to just dehumanize
everybody.
QuoteLGBTI
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?
I skimmed the article, does it give an example of genderless pronouns that we're supposed to use?
He sounds like a dick.
Quote from: garbon on September 29, 2016, 06:07:01 PM
He sounds like a dick.
No Shit. I'll bet he is the kind to insist on being called "professor" while denying that anyone can indicate how he should address them.
Address me as 'Magister Militum'.
You knew Aetius, didn't you Grumbles?
Pontifex Minimus, here.
Golan Globus.
I'm torn. Tenured professor vs HR, which is worse?
Quote from: HVC on September 29, 2016, 07:57:55 PM
I'm torn. Tenured professor vs HR, which is worse?
HR
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 29, 2016, 05:44:13 PM
QuoteLGBTI
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?
Oh, you're very late. The "I" has been added long time ago.
In fact, it has gotten several extra letters ever since. If you want to be 100% Progressive, you should use the term "LGBTIQA".
http://student.uncw.edu/org/pride/FAQ/faq_lgbtiqa.htm (http://student.uncw.edu/org/pride/FAQ/faq_lgbtiqa.htm)
Uni of N. Carolina clarification:
LGBTIQA stands for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Intersex, Queer/Questioning and Allied. It is sometimes also abbreviated as LGBT or GLBT. The word "Queer" is also sometimes used to include all of these groups.
I am just going to do what I have always done. I will say "he" to refer to a male, and "she" to refer to a female. If I ever talk to a transgender person, I will be happy to use whatever pronouns that person specifically request, within reason (your majesty is NOT acceptable :P).
Quote from: Valmy on September 29, 2016, 05:24:23 PM
god, god's if you will.
Though I would prefer a genderless pronoun to having to learn 800 pronouns for each new special gender.
Hey, here's a crazy idea - why don't we keep to the 2 genders we know?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 29, 2016, 05:44:13 PM
QuoteLGBTI
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.
Quote from: Martinus on September 30, 2016, 01:38:54 AM
Quote from: Valmy on September 29, 2016, 05:24:23 PM
god, god's if you will.
Though I would prefer a genderless pronoun to having to learn 800 pronouns for each new special gender.
Hey, here's a crazy idea - why don't we keep to the 2 genders we know?
Because, you know, there are more than two?
I guess my social circle is not diverse enough but I've never encountered this "more gender pronouns" outside rants about it on the internet.
Quote from: Zanza on September 30, 2016, 06:01:42 AM
I guess my social circle is not diverse enough but I've never encountered this "more gender pronouns" outside rants about it on the internet.
I only encountered it in university.
I have several friends who would like to be referred to as something other than he or she (often it's they/them). And you know, it's not that hard!
Quote from: Hamilcar on September 29, 2016, 04:57:33 PM
http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/news/canada/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/u-of-t-professor-attacks-political-correctness-in-video-refuses-to-use-genderless-pronouns
:bleeding:
Those idiotic millenials will be the death of our civilization.
G.
I have never encountered this in my life, but I just googled and the proponents of a non-gender specific language in Spanish go with -e terminations. Which actually makes some grammatical sense (we already have shitloads of non-gender specific adjectives that end with -e).
It's actually funny because one of the pet causes of Polish feminists is to create feminine version of words which denote professions where the word in use has traditionally a masculine form only (so eg. rather than calling a female minister "Madame Minister" they insist on using the form "Ministra").
It seems to me that this all boils down to insisting on change for the change sake rather than addressing any actual wrong.
Quote from: Solmyr on September 30, 2016, 05:53:08 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 30, 2016, 01:38:54 AM
Quote from: Valmy on September 29, 2016, 05:24:23 PM
god, god's if you will.
Though I would prefer a genderless pronoun to having to learn 800 pronouns for each new special gender.
Hey, here's a crazy idea - why don't we keep to the 2 genders we know?
Because, you know, there are more than two?
Not in English. In any case gender is supposedly a rather arbitrary concept no? If we are going to do any radical reforms to the concept it just makes sense to make it more simple and streamlined not more complicated.
Quote from: Zanza on September 30, 2016, 06:01:42 AM
I guess my social circle is not diverse enough but I've never encountered this "more gender pronouns" outside rants about it on the internet.
Same.
It's funny though, because in Spanish words like "presidente", "doctor", "inventor" don't actually have morphological gender particles attached to them, but because of overwhelming societal discrimination (that is, no women presidents, doctors or inventors) they are seen as masculine words, and words which do carry gender marks (presidenta, doctora, inventora), were created naturally for the "exceptions" (or worse, if you look up words like "presidenta" in really old Spanish dictionaries, you'll get "the wife of the president").
Quote from: Valmy on September 30, 2016, 07:14:46 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on September 30, 2016, 05:53:08 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 30, 2016, 01:38:54 AM
Quote from: Valmy on September 29, 2016, 05:24:23 PM
god, god's if you will.
Though I would prefer a genderless pronoun to having to learn 800 pronouns for each new special gender.
Hey, here's a crazy idea - why don't we keep to the 2 genders we know?
Because, you know, there are more than two?
Not in English. In any case gender is supposedly a rather arbitrary concept no? If we are going to do any radical reforms to the concept it just makes sense to make it more simple and streamlined not more complicated.
Er, I am referring to a person's gender of course, not to linguistic one. :rolleyes: It's fairly well-established that everyone does not fit into male/female gender division.
And as I said, referring to a person by the pronoun they want is not that hard. Ignoring the "800 different genders" strawman arguments, the only reason you would refuse to do so is purposefully being an asshole. Obviously, Martinus fits into that category, but I'm not sure it's a good idea to keep him company in there.
Quote from: Solmyr on September 30, 2016, 07:20:42 AM
Er, I am referring to a person's gender of course, not to linguistic one. :rolleyes: It's fairly well-established that everyone does not fit into male/female gender division.
It is supposedly a totally arbitrary social distinction so how can it be fairly well established? We can just arbitrarily expand the gender division to make it so everybody pretty much does.
QuoteAnd as I said, referring to a person by the pronoun they want is not that hard.
Yes it is. I have a very hard time remembering people's names. I sure as hell do not want to live in a world where I would give grave insult if I also got their pronoun wrong.
QuoteIgnoring the "800 different genders" strawman arguments, the only reason you would refuse to do so is purposefully being an asshole.
I would never intentionally do so. But why? Why do this? What benefit does it serve? We have done a pretty good job making life less formal and more relaxed in its social burdens. Why invent more? Besides if gender is truly oppressive and arbitrary then why make it also more complicated? Why not just get rid of it and have one gender?
QuoteObviously, Martinus fits into that category, but I'm not sure it's a good idea to keep him company in there.
Oh fuck you. Talk about a strawman.
To play it safe I shall refer to everyone as Shme and shmer
Quote from: Valmy on September 30, 2016, 07:25:03 AM
Yes it is. I have a very hard time remembering people's names. I sure as hell do not want to live in a world where I would give grave insult if I also got their pronoun wrong.
We can't base things on you being forgetful, though. If you are completely unable to remember people's names and pronouns, then that's a problem with your social communication, not with gender pronouns.
Quote from: Valmy on September 30, 2016, 07:25:03 AM
I would never intentionally do so. But why? Why do this? What benefit does it serve? We have done a pretty good job making life less formal and more relaxed in its social burdens. Why invent more? Besides if gender is truly oppressive and arbitrary then why make it also more complicated? Why not just get rid of it and have one gender?
Because gender (male, female, or other) can be part of a person's identity?
Quote from: Valmy on September 30, 2016, 07:25:03 AM
Yes it is. I have a very hard time remembering people's names. I sure as hell do not want to live in a world where I would give grave insult if I also got their pronoun wrong.
I don't think you are likely to run into all that many people making a request.
Quote from: Valmy on September 30, 2016, 07:25:03 AMI would never intentionally do so. But why? Why do this? What benefit does it serve? We have done a pretty good job making life less formal and more relaxed in its social burdens. Why invent more? Besides if gender is truly oppressive and arbitrary then why make it also more complicated? Why not just get rid of it and have one gender?
It makes them feel supported and happy. Other than your apparent inability to even remember people's names, I don't see what skin off your back that this could possibly be.
Quote from: Solmyr on September 30, 2016, 07:31:48 AM
Because gender (male, female, or other) can be part of a person's identity?
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.
QuoteWe can't base things on you being forgetful, though. If you are completely unable to remember people's names and pronouns, then that's a problem with your social communication, not with gender pronouns.
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.
Quote from: garbon on September 30, 2016, 07:33:29 AM
Quote from: Valmy on September 30, 2016, 07:25:03 AM
Yes it is. I have a very hard time remembering people's names. I sure as hell do not want to live in a world where I would give grave insult if I also got their pronoun wrong.
I don't think you are likely to run into all that many people making a request.
Quote from: Valmy on September 30, 2016, 07:25:03 AMI would never intentionally do so. But why? Why do this? What benefit does it serve? We have done a pretty good job making life less formal and more relaxed in its social burdens. Why invent more? Besides if gender is truly oppressive and arbitrary then why make it also more complicated? Why not just get rid of it and have one gender?
It makes them feel supported and happy. Other than your apparent inability to even remember people's names, I don't see what skin off your back that this could possibly be.
Oh FFS. I have already said I would never intentionally use the wrong pronoun and I would do my very best to accommodate them. Why was that statement ignored?
I am talking about this as a concept of gender that should be generally used in society. I have issues with it.
We already have a third choice- it.
Quote from: Valmy on September 30, 2016, 07:41:32 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 30, 2016, 07:33:29 AM
Quote from: Valmy on September 30, 2016, 07:25:03 AM
Yes it is. I have a very hard time remembering people's names. I sure as hell do not want to live in a world where I would give grave insult if I also got their pronoun wrong.
I don't think you are likely to run into all that many people making a request.
Quote from: Valmy on September 30, 2016, 07:25:03 AMI would never intentionally do so. But why? Why do this? What benefit does it serve? We have done a pretty good job making life less formal and more relaxed in its social burdens. Why invent more? Besides if gender is truly oppressive and arbitrary then why make it also more complicated? Why not just get rid of it and have one gender?
It makes them feel supported and happy. Other than your apparent inability to even remember people's names, I don't see what skin off your back that this could possibly be.
Oh FFS. I have already said I would never intentionally use the wrong pronoun and I would do my very best to accommodate them. Why was that statement ignored?
I am talking about this as a concept of gender that should be generally used in society. I have issues with it.
You are acting hysterical.
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.
Call me Maestro.
Quote from: Malthus on September 30, 2016, 08:09:38 AM
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.
Quote from: Valmy on September 30, 2016, 07:39:29 AM
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.
Quote from: Valmy on September 30, 2016, 07:39:29 AM
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.
Quote from: garbon on September 30, 2016, 08:01:04 AM
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?
Quote from: Valmy on September 30, 2016, 08:35:34 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 30, 2016, 08:01:04 AM
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.
Quote from: Solmyr on September 30, 2016, 08:23:38 AM
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.
QuoteI 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?
QuoteTbh, 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.
Quote from: garbon on September 30, 2016, 08:39:17 AM
You are the one who keeps resorting to foul language.
I did? My apologies.
QuoteAnd 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.
QuoteSimilarly 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.
Quote from: Solmyr on September 30, 2016, 08:23:38 AM
Quote from: Malthus on September 30, 2016, 08:09:38 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: Malthus on September 30, 2016, 09:02:48 AM
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.
Quote from: Valmy on September 30, 2016, 08:43:00 AM
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?
Quote from: Valmy on September 30, 2016, 08:43:00 AM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on September 30, 2016, 09:02:48 AM
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Quote from: Solmyr on September 30, 2016, 09:30:05 AM
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?
QuoteAs 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?
Quote"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.
Quote from: Solmyr on September 30, 2016, 09:34:39 AM
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?
Quote
"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.
Quote
Also, why is something leading to more social friction automatically bad?
It isn't. Some things are worth creating social friction over ...
Quote
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.
Quote from: Valmy on September 30, 2016, 09:58:06 AM
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.
Quote from: Valmy on September 30, 2016, 09:58:06 AM
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.
Quote from: Zanza on September 30, 2016, 09:56:52 AM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on September 30, 2016, 10:13:47 AM
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.
Quote from: Solmyr on September 30, 2016, 10:18:52 AM
Quote from: Malthus on September 30, 2016, 10:13:47 AM
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.
Quote from: Solmyr on September 30, 2016, 08:25:24 AM
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).
QuoteTbh, 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.
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. :)
Quote from: The Brain on September 30, 2016, 12:33:49 PM
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.
Quote from: Martinus on September 30, 2016, 01:41:46 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 29, 2016, 05:44:13 PM
QuoteLGBTI
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?
Quote from: viper37 on September 30, 2016, 12:40:47 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 30, 2016, 01:41:46 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 29, 2016, 05:44:13 PM
QuoteLGBTI
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
Quote from: Solmyr on September 30, 2016, 10:16:25 AM
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?
QuoteSee above.
So not your job to explain concepts you introduce? Ok then.
Well at least we can agree you should be nice to people.
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
:lol:
Quote from: Malthus on September 30, 2016, 10:30:42 AM
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.
Quote from: Solmyr on September 30, 2016, 04:43:12 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 30, 2016, 10:30:42 AM
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?
Quote from: Solmyr on September 30, 2016, 04:43:12 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 30, 2016, 10:30:42 AM
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.
Quote from: Barrister on September 30, 2016, 05:01:40 PM
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?
Yes, why not? See, addressing people isn't a big problem after all. As I said, about the only time you'll need to remember someone's third-person pronoun is when you talk about them to someone else. And in such a case you probably know them well enough to remember their pronoun. Their name or "you" works just fine when talking to them directly.
Quote from: Martinus on September 30, 2016, 04:00:22 PM
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
:lol:
The Michigan Difference (TM)
Quote from: Solmyr on September 30, 2016, 05:22:07 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 30, 2016, 05:01:40 PM
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?
Yes, why not? See, addressing people isn't a big problem after all. As I said, about the only time you'll need to remember someone's third-person pronoun is when you talk about them to someone else. And in such a case you probably know them well enough to remember their pronoun. Their name or "you" works just fine when talking to them directly.
On all levels apart from physical, I identify as an Apache Helicopter.
Quote from: Solmyr on September 30, 2016, 05:22:07 PM
As I said, about the only time you'll need to remember someone's third-person pronoun is when you talk about them to someone else.
Why would they care, though, if they are not even part of the conversation?
QuoteAnd in such a case you probably know them well enough to remember their pronoun. Their name or "you" works just fine when talking to them directly.
Wtf. :lol: I very often talk about people I encounter without even knowing their name, not to mention their preferred pronoun. I think most people are the same.
I mean the whole story was about a professor refusing to use the "preferred pronoun" for students. A professor probably encounters 100+ different students each year. I doubt by the end of the semester he or she (or ze?) remembers all of their names - not to mention their preferred pronouns.
Seriously, it's pretty funny to see you tie yourself in knots over this. It is clearly something you haven't thought through in any depth as it is just accepted as a dogma in your echo chamber of progressives - that's why your explanations and arguments, when actually challenged about it, come across as so puerile.
Because arguments for it have been made countless times and I don't feel like arguing them yet again because some asshole professor refuses to respect his students. Here's a writeup with a whole bunch of arguments (with a summarizing quote): https://letsqueerthingsup.com/2014/09/15/what-youre-actually-saying-when-you-ignore-someones-preferred-gender-pronouns/
QuoteWHAT YOU'RE ACTUALLY SAYING WHEN YOU IGNORE SOMEONE'S GENDER PRONOUNS
1. I know you better than you know yourself.
2. I would rather hurt you repeatedly than change the way I speak about you.
3. Your sense of safety is not important to me.
4. Your identity isn't real and shouldn't be acknowledged.
5. I want to teach everyone around me to disrespect you.
6. Offending you is fine if it makes me feel more comfortable.
7. I can hear you talking, but I'm not really listening.
8. Being who you truly are is an inconvenience to me.
9. I would prefer it if you stopped being honest with me.
10. I am not an ally, a friend, or someone you can trust.
No, I imagine that this isn't really what you are trying to say. But the intent is different from the impact. While you may not intend to say any of these things, that doesn't change how it impacts the person on the receiving end. When you misgender someone, these are some of the take away messages that are received when you invalidate them.
The number of students who ask for a preferred pronoun is typically very small, and learning who they are is not some superhuman feat of memory, even when one has over a hundred students.
Quote from: SolmyrWHAT YOU'RE ACTUALLY SAYING WHEN YOU IGNORE SOMEONE'S GENDER PRONOUNS
1. I know you better than you know yourself.
2. I would rather hurt you repeatedly than change the way I speak about you.
3. Your sense of safety is not important to me.
4. Your identity isn't real and shouldn't be acknowledged.
5. I want to teach everyone around me to disrespect you.
6. Offending you is fine if it makes me feel more comfortable.
7. I can hear you talking, but I'm not really listening.
8. Being who you truly are is an inconvenience to me.
9. I would prefer it if you stopped being honest with me.
10. I am not an ally, a friend, or someone you can trust.
11. I speak grammatically correct English.
Quote from: Solmyr on October 01, 2016, 04:42:00 AM
Because arguments for it have been made countless times and I don't feel like arguing them yet again because some asshole professor refuses to respect his students. Here's a writeup with a whole bunch of arguments (with a summarizing quote): https://letsqueerthingsup.com/2014/09/15/what-youre-actually-saying-when-you-ignore-someones-preferred-gender-pronouns/
QuoteWHAT YOU'RE ACTUALLY SAYING WHEN YOU IGNORE SOMEONE'S GENDER PRONOUNS
1. I know you better than you know yourself.
2. I would rather hurt you repeatedly than change the way I speak about you.
3. Your sense of safety is not important to me.
4. Your identity isn't real and shouldn't be acknowledged.
5. I want to teach everyone around me to disrespect you.
6. Offending you is fine if it makes me feel more comfortable.
7. I can hear you talking, but I'm not really listening.
8. Being who you truly are is an inconvenience to me.
9. I would prefer it if you stopped being honest with me.
10. I am not an ally, a friend, or someone you can trust.
No, I imagine that this isn't really what you are trying to say. But the intent is different from the impact. While you may not intend to say any of these things, that doesn't change how it impacts the person on the receiving end. When you misgender someone, these are some of the take away messages that are received when you invalidate them.
As I said before just because someone wants a special accommodation doesn't mean that you are a dick you don't grant it.
The person who can be 'impacted' also has to own some responsibility on whether or not they should actually be taking those 10 offenses when a person doesn't do so.
Quote from: Zanza on October 01, 2016, 04:51:46 AM
11. I speak grammatically correct English.
Because language never, ever changes.
Quote3. Your sense of safety is not important to me.
Solmyr, can you explain this one to me?
Quote from: Oexmelin on October 01, 2016, 04:49:56 AM
The number of students who ask for a preferred pronoun is typically very small, and learning who they are is not some superhuman feat of memory, even when one has over a hundred students.
Which is just as well a perfectly good argument why no special accomodation is needed for a very small number of people.
Not to mention, a proposition that college students never engage in any behaviour that is irrational, dishonest, prankish, trollish, or meant to create irritation and annoyance, is easily falsifiable.
Quote from: Solmyr on October 01, 2016, 07:24:43 AM
Quote from: Zanza on October 01, 2016, 04:51:46 AM
11. I speak grammatically correct English.
Because language never, ever changes.
Doesn't make it anymore correct right now.
Quote from: Martinus on October 01, 2016, 07:43:15 AM
Quote3. Your sense of safety is not important to me.
Solmyr, can you explain this one to me?
For a lawyer you really don't seem to like reading. The link I posted explains it quite well.
Quote from: Martinus on October 01, 2016, 07:45:17 AM
Quote from: Oexmelin on October 01, 2016, 04:49:56 AM
The number of students who ask for a preferred pronoun is typically very small, and learning who they are is not some superhuman feat of memory, even when one has over a hundred students.
Which is just as well a perfectly good argument why no special accomodation is needed for a very small number of people.
Actually, small minorities are precisely the groups that needs special accommodation to protect their rights.
What? Now this is a matter of rights?
Quote from: Solmyr on October 01, 2016, 08:03:05 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 01, 2016, 07:43:15 AM
Quote3. Your sense of safety is not important to me.
Solmyr, can you explain this one to me?
For a lawyer you really don't seem to like reading. The link I posted explains it quite well.
It's gibberish - I was hoping you will explain it to me.
Quote from: Martinus on October 01, 2016, 08:45:12 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on October 01, 2016, 08:03:05 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 01, 2016, 07:43:15 AM
Quote3. Your sense of safety is not important to me.
Solmyr, can you explain this one to me?
For a lawyer you really don't seem to like reading. The link I posted explains it quite well.
It's gibberish - I was hoping you will explain it to me.
Nah. It's quite clear. Not my problem if you fail to understand.
The proliferation of personalized personal pronouns is the sort of thing that can quickly become unmanageable. Situations will inevitably arise in which individuals find that nothing on the menu of common alt pronouns quite suits their identity and come up with new variations of their own. 'They' is an alternative, although there seems to be no clear link between genderless pronouns and gender egalitarianism in societies (e.g. Farsi and Dari have genderless pronouns).
Quote from: Martinus on October 01, 2016, 07:45:17 AM
Not to mention, a proposition that college students never engage in any behaviour that is irrational, dishonest, prankish, trollish, or meant to create irritation and annoyance, is easily falsifiable.
You mean just like that U of T professor who is grandstanding for very little?
The way such a policy is set up in colleges acts as a buffer against trollish behavior. I have also found that, despite your expectations (or is it projections?), students who are thinking of taking advantage of such policies are reasonable and will make all sorts of allowances for awkwardness. Students who are politically opposed to such policy usually protest in other ways. These will, of course, not make it in whatever media thrives on daily rightwing outrage. I am also pretty sure that some students will, at one point or another, protest this doing silly, offensive, stupid shit. It's quite expected. It will hopefully spur debate. Then they will move on.
But I will readily admit my reading of the situation is only based on my daily experience with college students, rather than being expertly informed by regurgitated breibart and 4chan posts.
Well I don't want to be anybody's friend who is going to label me a monster for making a simple pronoun error.
Go be somebody else's friend you touchy asshole. I mean I presume that person would just say 'um hey you made a mistake I prefer to be referred to as XXXX' and not just presume 10 horrible things about me.
QuoteYou mean just like that U of T professor who is grandstanding for very little?
The funny thing is I actually disagreed with the prof and said I would prefer genderless pronouns.
The basic rule of life is to not be a douchebag. Sure there are many out there who are douchebags, but returning the favor does nothing but elevate the blood pressure. If some young thing is specially hurt (and thus being douchy) by the wrong pronoun, then just call them what they ask.
Really, it is like an apology. Even if you are not wrong, it is not a fucking big deal to say "sorry" in order to smooth the social situation. Only a douchebag would refuse to say such because "I did nothing wrong."
I ran across very few students who demanded special anything, and some whom I thought should have asked for whatever accommodation refused such. Just don't be a douche, and despite the douchebags out there, at least you are acting in an ok manner.
We've been playing this game ever since men decided to grow their hair long.
"Ma'am?"
"Huh?"
"Oh, pardon me, sir."
Quote from: Oexmelin on October 01, 2016, 11:57:46 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 01, 2016, 07:45:17 AM
Not to mention, a proposition that college students never engage in any behaviour that is irrational, dishonest, prankish, trollish, or meant to create irritation and annoyance, is easily falsifiable.
You mean just like that U of T professor who is grandstanding for very little?
The way such a policy is set up in colleges acts as a buffer against trollish behavior. I have also found that, despite your expectations (or is it projections?), students who are thinking of taking advantage of such policies are reasonable and will make all sorts of allowances for awkwardness. Students who are politically opposed to such policy usually protest in other ways. These will, of course, not make it in whatever media thrives on daily rightwing outrage. I am also pretty sure that some students will, at one point or another, protest this doing silly, offensive, stupid shit. It's quite expected. It will hopefully spur debate. Then they will move on.
But I will readily admit my reading of the situation is only based on my daily experience with college students, rather than being expertly informed by regurgitated breibart and 4chan posts.
I recently interviewed a trans gendered person who I was considering to provide training to our clients regarding the recent amendments to our human rights code. They were very understanding as I fumbled over the proper pronouns to use.
Quote from: PDH on October 01, 2016, 03:43:12 PM
I ran across very few students who demanded special anything, and some whom I thought should have asked for whatever accommodation refused such. Just don't be a douche, and despite the douchebags out there, at least you are acting in an ok manner.
It is my observation that the students most in need of appropriate accommodations are often the ones least likely to seek them out.
Yeah, it really is not like you are going to be labeled a monster for failing to remember hundreds of pronouns. That argument exists only in the minds of people who oppose the use of preferred pronouns. Most people are, in fact, very understanding even if you don't get it right, as long as you are willing to respect them in turn and learn.
Quote from: Solmyr on October 02, 2016, 07:47:42 AM
Yeah, it really is not like you are going to be labeled a monster for failing to remember hundreds of pronouns. That argument exists only in the minds of people who oppose the use of preferred pronouns. Most people are, in fact, very understanding even if you don't get it right, as long as you are willing to respect them in turn and learn.
But, earlier, you argued that "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." The implication was that failure to do so could only be the result of disrespect. Now, you argue that failure is understandable. Are you changing your mind, or just using whatever argument seems convenient?
Quote from: Solmyr on October 02, 2016, 07:47:42 AM
Yeah, it really is not like you are going to be labeled a monster for failing to remember hundreds of pronouns. That argument exists only in the minds of people who oppose the use of preferred pronouns. Most people are, in fact, very understanding even if you don't get it right, as long as you are willing to respect them in turn and learn.
This just isn't true. Failure to conform and accommodate is being punished severely.
Here's a student who was sent to "re-education" for calling himself "handsome" (the horror!): http://thetab.com/us/columbia/2016/10/01/i-was-reported-for-gender-misconduct-for-calling-myself-handsome-in-class-2611
I will stick with my policy of hating everybody and not talking to people.
Quote from: Hamilcar on October 02, 2016, 09:23:28 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on October 02, 2016, 07:47:42 AM
Yeah, it really is not like you are going to be labeled a monster for failing to remember hundreds of pronouns. That argument exists only in the minds of people who oppose the use of preferred pronouns. Most people are, in fact, very understanding even if you don't get it right, as long as you are willing to respect them in turn and learn.
This just isn't true. Failure to conform and accommodate is being punished severely.
Here's a student who was sent to "re-education" for calling himself "handsome" (the horror!): http://thetab.com/us/columbia/2016/10/01/i-was-reported-for-gender-misconduct-for-calling-myself-handsome-in-class-2611
I am somewhat skeptical of a hearsay piece published in a student tabloid. Regardless, this situation would be a fringe case, not a common problem.
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 02, 2016, 09:25:43 AM
I will stick with my policy of hating everybody and not talking to people.
Live footage of Ed Anger:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/46/MHS_Szymon_Slupnik_XVI_w_Kostarowce_p.jpg/800px-MHS_Szymon_Slupnik_XVI_w_Kostarowce_p.jpg)
Quote from: grumbler on October 02, 2016, 08:43:11 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on October 02, 2016, 07:47:42 AM
Yeah, it really is not like you are going to be labeled a monster for failing to remember hundreds of pronouns. That argument exists only in the minds of people who oppose the use of preferred pronouns. Most people are, in fact, very understanding even if you don't get it right, as long as you are willing to respect them in turn and learn.
But, earlier, you argued that "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." The implication was that failure to do so could only be the result of disrespect. Now, you argue that failure is understandable. Are you changing your mind, or just using whatever argument seems convenient?
I don't see how my earlier argument is invalidated. If you just recently met someone and make a mistake with their pronoun, it's understandable. If you know someone well enough that you speak to/about them on a daily basis, learning their pronoun is something that can be expected.
Quote from: Hamilcar on October 02, 2016, 09:27:19 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 02, 2016, 09:25:43 AM
I will stick with my policy of hating everybody and not talking to people.
Live footage of Ed Anger:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/46/MHS_Szymon_Slupnik_XVI_w_Kostarowce_p.jpg/800px-MHS_Szymon_Slupnik_XVI_w_Kostarowce_p.jpg)
(https://bradhodson.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/throne.jpg)
Quote from: Solmyr on October 02, 2016, 09:27:12 AM
Quote from: Hamilcar on October 02, 2016, 09:23:28 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on October 02, 2016, 07:47:42 AM
Yeah, it really is not like you are going to be labeled a monster for failing to remember hundreds of pronouns. That argument exists only in the minds of people who oppose the use of preferred pronouns. Most people are, in fact, very understanding even if you don't get it right, as long as you are willing to respect them in turn and learn.
This just isn't true. Failure to conform and accommodate is being punished severely.
Here's a student who was sent to "re-education" for calling himself "handsome" (the horror!): http://thetab.com/us/columbia/2016/10/01/i-was-reported-for-gender-misconduct-for-calling-myself-handsome-in-class-2611
I am somewhat skeptical of a hearsay piece published in a student tabloid. Regardless, this situation would be a fringe case, not a common problem.
There is more where that came from:
Duke Offers Men a 'Safe Space' to Contemplate Their 'Toxic Masculinity' http://heatst.com/culture-wars/duke-offers-men-a-safe-space-to-contemplate-their-toxic-masculinity/
UMich 'pronoun committee' announces change to class rosters http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=8193
UCL Provides Trigger Warnings for Archaeology Students Who Are Afraid of Bones http://reason.com/blog/2016/09/28/ucl-provides-trigger-warnings-for-archae
That last one can't be real, can it?
Quote from: HVC on October 02, 2016, 09:34:31 AM
That last one can't be real, can it?
You underestimate the power of the dark side, young jedi.
Quote from: Hamilcar on October 02, 2016, 09:32:07 AM
There is more where that came from:
Why are you wasting so much time on websites that have "culture wars" rubrics, looking for reasons to be offended?
Quote from: Hamilcar on October 02, 2016, 09:32:07 AM
Duke Offers Men a 'Safe Space' to Contemplate Their 'Toxic Masculinity' http://heatst.com/culture-wars/duke-offers-men-a-safe-space-to-contemplate-their-toxic-masculinity/
Quote
The Duke Men's Project, launched this month and hosted by the campus Women's Center, offers a nine-week program for "male-identified" students that discusses male privilege, patriarchy, "the language of dominance," rape culture, pornography, machismo and other topics.
...
Junior Dipro Bhowmik, who sits on the leadership team, recently said the goal of the Duke Men's Project is for male students to "critique and analyze their own masculinity and toxic masculinities to create healthier ones."
Alex Bressler, another junior on the leadership team, said the program would help men "proactively deconstruct our masculinity."
Duke's new program is patterned off of a similar one at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, where participants are asked to contemplate how masculinity plays a harmful influence in lives.
There the program seeks "to shift the culture of masculinity toward more non-violent norms"—the underlying assumption being that violence is currently the norm for men.
I would sooooo be the first to sign up for that one. I would be in the front row.
Quote from: HVC on October 02, 2016, 09:34:31 AM
That last one can't be real, can it?
The warning was for a course on archaeology of modern conflict (i.e. 20th/21st century), and the warning mentioned that "events covered in the archaeologies of modern conflict course might be disturbing, even traumatising," according to The Times: http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/walk-out-if-you-get-upset-archaeology-students-told-8zz6bc7t8
The Mail adds:
QuoteLecturer Gabriel Moshenska, who co-ordinates the UCL course on how archaeology can help unearth the truth about 20th and 21st century conflicts, said some students had been in the Armed Forces and may have suffered psychological trauma.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3805872/Warning-archaeology-pupils-bones-scary-sparks-fresh-fears-cosseted-generation-students.html
That said, if you signed up for this course, you should have a broad idea of what to expect.
Quote from: Syt on October 02, 2016, 11:11:44 AM
That said, if you signed up for this course, you should have a broad idea of what to expect.
I disagree. If you are an *adult* you should be expected to deal with the trauma of 20th century conflict.
A buddy of mine did war crimes forensics work in the former Yugokilleverbodylikeits1945slavia years ago; said the condition of relatively recent mass graves are more fucked up than you'd think. They're not cartoon skeletons.
I can see how somebody who's seen some hardcore shit in a war zone could conceivably be put off their lunch.
Quote from: Hamilcar on October 02, 2016, 11:17:02 AM
Quote from: Syt on October 02, 2016, 11:11:44 AM
That said, if you signed up for this course, you should have a broad idea of what to expect.
I disagree. If you are an *adult* you should be expected to deal with the trauma of 20th century conflict.
That's because you're a sociopath with hangups about organized religion and disaster insurance, but we knew that.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 02, 2016, 11:23:06 AM
Quote from: Hamilcar on October 02, 2016, 11:17:02 AM
Quote from: Syt on October 02, 2016, 11:11:44 AM
That said, if you signed up for this course, you should have a broad idea of what to expect.
I disagree. If you are an *adult* you should be expected to deal with the trauma of 20th century conflict.
That's because you're a sociopath with hangups about organized religion and disaster insurance, but we knew that.
Vote Tornado 2016.
Quote from: Oexmelin on October 02, 2016, 09:53:37 AM
Quote from: Hamilcar on October 02, 2016, 09:32:07 AM
There is more where that came from:
Why are you wasting so much time on websites that have "culture wars" rubrics, looking for reasons to be offended?
"looking for reasons to be offended" seems like a good description of people demanding the use of genderless pronouns.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 02, 2016, 11:22:09 AM
A buddy of mine did war crimes forensics work in the former Yugokilleverbodylikeits1945slavia years ago; said the condition of relatively recent mass graves are more fucked up than you'd think. They're not cartoon skeletons.
I can see how somebody who's seen some hardcore shit in a war zone could conceivably be put off their lunch.
Dunno about that. But when I was in military hospital in '96 with a busted knee cap I met a guy I had gone to school with. He was there for psychotherapy. He got drafted into the medics, and apparently he didn't respond well to the photos and videos of the effects of modern battlefield weapons on the human body.
Quote from: Syt on October 02, 2016, 11:29:44 AM
Dunno about that. But when I was in military hospital in '96 with a busted knee cap I met a guy I had gone to school with. He was there for psychotherapy. He got drafted into the medics, and apparently he didn't respond well to the photos and videos of the effects of modern battlefield weapons on the human body.
Some people can hack it, some people can't.
It is, however, unfortunate that one's own basic humanity and sense of decency is held against them when they can't, particularly by those who never walked an inch in those moccasins. So easy to judge from the sidelines.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 02, 2016, 11:36:43 AM
Quote from: Syt on October 02, 2016, 11:29:44 AM
Dunno about that. But when I was in military hospital in '96 with a busted knee cap I met a guy I had gone to school with. He was there for psychotherapy. He got drafted into the medics, and apparently he didn't respond well to the photos and videos of the effects of modern battlefield weapons on the human body.
Some people can hack it, some people can't.
It is, however, unfortunate that one's own basic humanity and sense of decency is held against them when they can't, particularly by those who never walked an inch in those moccasins. So easy to judge from the sidelines.
Does it get easier with time? You were a cop, you must have seen plenty car crash victims and the like.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 02, 2016, 12:20:50 PM
Does it get easier with time? You were a cop, you must have seen plenty car crash victims and the like.
Not really a whole lot of car crashes, but a couple. Seen plenty of gun shots, suicides, other types of accidents, though. Saw what a full-on wrecking ball does to somebody. Not an ounce of blood. Just really deflated.
Plenty of fire victims. Saw the fire department carry out a toddler that had been burned so bad, I honestly thought it was a dog.
For me, it wasn't dead bodies that bothered me, as much as watching it as it happens that zapped me at times. They're talking, and then they're not.
Quote from: Hamilcar on October 02, 2016, 09:36:17 AM
Quote from: HVC on October 02, 2016, 09:34:31 AM
That last one can't be real, can it?
You underestimate the power of the dark side, young jedi.
Yes, there is no end to content one can find to support a specious argument.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 02, 2016, 11:29:10 AM
Quote from: Oexmelin on October 02, 2016, 09:53:37 AM
Quote from: Hamilcar on October 02, 2016, 09:32:07 AM
There is more where that came from:
Why are you wasting so much time on websites that have "culture wars" rubrics, looking for reasons to be offended?
"looking for reasons to be offended" seems like a good description of people demanding the use of genderless pronouns.
There was a time I would probably have shared that view, but having spent some time meeting with a transgendered person, their preferred pronoun - they - seemed most appropriate. I am not sure why one would object to addressing a person in the manner they prefer.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 02, 2016, 02:52:58 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 02, 2016, 11:29:10 AM
Quote from: Oexmelin on October 02, 2016, 09:53:37 AM
Quote from: Hamilcar on October 02, 2016, 09:32:07 AM
There is more where that came from:
Why are you wasting so much time on websites that have "culture wars" rubrics, looking for reasons to be offended?
"looking for reasons to be offended" seems like a good description of people demanding the use of genderless pronouns.
There was a time I would probably have shared that view, but having spent some time meeting with a transgendered person, their preferred pronoun - they - seemed most appropriate. I am not sure why one would object to addressing a person in the manner they prefer.
"They" is fine. It's the made up ones that are the problem.
Quote from: Hamilcar on October 02, 2016, 03:02:18 PM
"They" is fine. It's the made up ones that are the problem.
Why are they a problem, and do you have evidence that they are common enough to be a big problem?
Quote from: Solmyr on October 02, 2016, 03:24:52 PM
Quote from: Hamilcar on October 02, 2016, 03:02:18 PM
"They" is fine. It's the made up ones that are the problem.
Why are they a problem, and do you have evidence that they are common enough to be a big problem?
"They" is English.
The others are made up words used in an ideological struggle. Pure power play: use this nonsense word, or you'll be reported to "re-education".
Quote from: Solmyr on October 02, 2016, 07:47:42 AM
Yeah, it really is not like you are going to be labeled a monster for failing to remember hundreds of pronouns. That argument exists only in the minds of people who oppose the use of preferred pronouns. Most people are, in fact, very understanding even if you don't get it right, as long as you are willing to respect them in turn and learn.
But you have done it in this very thread. I just wanted to ask the question: what is Gender and why do we need it? Why should we have more of it?
But you have said I am not even worthy to discuss this question. For some reason.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 02, 2016, 02:52:58 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 02, 2016, 11:29:10 AM
Quote from: Oexmelin on October 02, 2016, 09:53:37 AM
Quote from: Hamilcar on October 02, 2016, 09:32:07 AM
There is more where that came from:
Why are you wasting so much time on websites that have "culture wars" rubrics, looking for reasons to be offended?
"looking for reasons to be offended" seems like a good description of people demanding the use of genderless pronouns.
There was a time I would probably have shared that view, but having spent some time meeting with a transgendered person, their preferred pronoun - they - seemed most appropriate. I am not sure why one would object to addressing a person in the manner they prefer.
I do object to people demanding that I substitute my reality for their own.
Does "toxic femininity" exist and if so what does it entail?
Quote from: Hamilcar on October 02, 2016, 03:38:24 PM
Quote from: Solmyr on October 02, 2016, 03:24:52 PM
Quote from: Hamilcar on October 02, 2016, 03:02:18 PM
"They" is fine. It's the made up ones that are the problem.
Why are they a problem, and do you have evidence that they are common enough to be a big problem?
"They" is English.
The others are made up words used in an ideological struggle. Pure power play: use this nonsense word, or you'll be reported to "re-education".
Every word was originally made up, before it became part of the language. And no, nobody is reporting people for "re-education" for failing to use correct pronouns, no matter how much you claim it happens.
Quote from: Valmy on October 02, 2016, 04:02:30 PM
Quote from: Solmyr on October 02, 2016, 07:47:42 AM
Yeah, it really is not like you are going to be labeled a monster for failing to remember hundreds of pronouns. That argument exists only in the minds of people who oppose the use of preferred pronouns. Most people are, in fact, very understanding even if you don't get it right, as long as you are willing to respect them in turn and learn.
But you have done it in this very thread. I just wanted to ask the question: what is Gender and why do we need it? Why should we have more of it?
But you have said I am not even worthy to discuss this question. For some reason.
Where have I said that?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 02, 2016, 12:38:20 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 02, 2016, 12:20:50 PM
Does it get easier with time? You were a cop, you must have seen plenty car crash victims and the like.
Not really a whole lot of car crashes, but a couple. Seen plenty of gun shots, suicides, other types of accidents, though. Saw what a full-on wrecking ball does to somebody. Not an ounce of blood. Just really deflated.
Plenty of fire victims. Saw the fire department carry out a toddler that had been burned so bad, I honestly thought it was a dog.
For me, it wasn't dead bodies that bothered me, as much as watching it as it happens that zapped me at times. They're talking, and then they're not.
Yikes :console:
Quote from: Zoupa on October 02, 2016, 05:17:11 PM
Yikes :console:
But hey...for people that can't hack it, fuck 'em in their filthy fucking useless fucking faces, right?
Quote from: Razgovory on October 02, 2016, 04:15:15 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 02, 2016, 02:52:58 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 02, 2016, 11:29:10 AM
Quote from: Oexmelin on October 02, 2016, 09:53:37 AM
Quote from: Hamilcar on October 02, 2016, 09:32:07 AM
There is more where that came from:
Why are you wasting so much time on websites that have "culture wars" rubrics, looking for reasons to be offended?
"looking for reasons to be offended" seems like a good description of people demanding the use of genderless pronouns.
There was a time I would probably have shared that view, but having spent some time meeting with a transgendered person, their preferred pronoun - they - seemed most appropriate. I am not sure why one would object to addressing a person in the manner they prefer.
I do object to people demanding that I substitute my reality for their own.
that is a two way street
I have a high-pitched voice and people on the phone or at the fast food speaker often call me "mam". I don't get angry, and I don't bother to correct them. I actually am a male. I certainly don't try to shame them.
Quote from: Martinus on October 02, 2016, 04:18:28 PM
Does "toxic femininity" exist and if so what does it entail?
Never trust a big butt and a smile.
Hey Hami, maybe you're on to something after all--
QuotePost Politics
Trump suggests military members with mental health issues aren't 'strong' and 'can't handle it'
By Sean Sullivan and Jenna Johnson October 3 at 5:11 PM
Donald Trump told a group of military veterans on Monday that some members of the military develop mental health issues because they are not "strong" and "can't handle it."
"When you talk about the mental health problems, when people come back from war and combat, they see things that maybe a lot of the folks in this room have seen many times over. And you're strong and you can handle it, but a lot of people can't handle it," the Republican presidential nominee told an audience of military veterans at an event in Northern Virginia on Monday morning. "And they see horror stories, they see events that you couldn't see in a movie — nobody would believe it."
Mental health advocates have been trying for decades to destigmatize depression, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and other issues in hopes of empowering people to not be afraid to seek medical help. The stigma surrounding mental health has been especially difficult to fight in the military, where many service members think that they should handle these issues on their own and that asking for help is a sign of weakness. Suicide has become an epidemic among veterans, and more than 20 end their lives each day.
Trump said these suicides often occur because veterans are not able to quickly make an appointment for "what could be a simple procedure, a simple prescription."
Trump's campaign defended the candidate's comments and accused the media of taking his words out of context.
"The media continues to operate as the propaganda arm of Hillary Clinton as they took Mr. Trump's words out of context in order to deceive voters and veterans — an appalling act that shows they are willing to go to any length to carry water for their candidate of choice," retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, one of Trump's top advisers, said in a statement. "Mr. Trump was highlighting the challenges veterans face when returning home after serving their country."
Marine Staff Sgt. Chad Robichaux, whose question Trump was answering in his remarks, issued a statement after the event calling it "sickening that anyone would twist Mr. Trump's comments." Robichaux, who suffered from PTSD, added: "I took his comments to be thoughtful and understanding of the struggles many veterans have."
Monday's town-hall-style event in Herndon, Va., was hosted by a political action group called Retired American Warriors. Trump gave prepared remarks and then fielded questions from the friendly audience. One combat veteran asked Trump what he would do to end the "social engineering" in the military, which now allows women and transgender people to serve. Trump agreed that the military has become too "politically correct" and said he would follow the recommendations of top military leaders.
"We have a politically correct military, and it's getting more and more politically correct every day," said Trump, who received five draft deferments during the Vietnam War. "And a lot of the great people in this room don't even understand how it's possible to do that. And that's through intelligence, not through ignorance — believe me — because some of the things that they're asking you to do and be politically correct about are ridiculous."
Trump's comments came during his first campaign event since new revelations about his personal taxes, which have drawn intense scrutiny, but he did not mention the New York Times report on Saturday that said he declared a loss of $916 million on his 1995 income tax returns, which could have enabled him to avoid paying federal income taxes for 18 years.
Instead, Trump continued to criticize Democratic rival Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server as secretary of state and laid out his plan to counter the threat of cyberattacks, an issue that came up during the presidential debate last week, although he struggled to provide a clear answer.
"Hillary Clinton's only experience in cybersecurity involved her criminal scheme to violate federal law," Trump said, referencing Clinton's emails. A Justice Department criminal investigation of Clinton's email practices resulted in no charges against her.
Trump said the threat of cyberattacks from the governments of countries such as China, North Korea and Russia constitutes "one of our most critical" national security concerns. As president, Trump said, he would promptly commission a review of cyber-defenses and weaknesses and ensure that the issue is a high priority.
However, Trump has sent mixed messages about safeguarding against online attacks from foreign intruders. During the summer, he called on Russia to hack Clinton's emails in hopes of recovering the ones that she said were personal and deleted.
"Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press," Trump said in July.
Trump said those who violate rules governing classified information should be prosecuted to the "fullest extent of the law." And he claimed that "lately, we're more interested in protecting the criminals than making sure we're strong and powerful."
Trump added: "I think we need to go back to a little more old-fashioned method of thinking."
With about five weeks left until the election, Trump is trying to recover from a bruising few days. In addition to new attention on his taxes, his performance in his first debate against Clinton was viewed as weak, polling shows, and he continued to engage in personal feuds that many Republicans deemed counterproductive.
At Monday's event, Trump repeated some positions he has emphasized earlier in his campaign, including the need for authorities to engage in "profiling" to guard against the threat of terrorism. He also railed against political correctness and vowed to protect religious liberty.
Trump was scheduled to campaign in Colorado later Monday.