Gender Pronouns

[DominantPoet]

This threads existence is coming about mainly due to some controversies happening up in Canuckian land, namely Bill C-16 and the University of Toronto and a professor who works there that is currently receiving an insane amount of criticism for, frankly, trying to be sane.

If you aren't aware, there are parts of the US that have been implementing laws which can result in people being fined for not using a gender pronoun that any particular individual has expressed a desire to be called. From what I understand, these laws came about as a wish and desire to give trans people legal rights and protection. Except, of course, with the way many laws are written and all, some people are taking it to ridiculous, extreme levels. Which seems to be a real potential issue with Bill C-16 here as well.

Now, for some context, for much of human history we've had pretty basic gender pronouns. Guys are him, his, himself, he. Dude, man, bro, boy and so on as well in more recent decades. Women are her, she, herself, hers. Lady, gal, girl and so forth. We've had a lot of other labels for sexes, of course, a lot of them mean-spirited as well. But at the heart of everything, it's been male, and female.

In recent years, transgender has become more recognized and acceptable to people in general. There's still a LOT of hate out there towards them, which is unfortunate. If men feel more like women, and want to become women, or vice versa, all the more power to them. Feeling comfortable in your own body is something everyone should be able to do.

However, there is a growing list of gender pronouns past the basic male/female that is emerging now. fae, e/ey, per, they, ve, xe, ze/zie, and I'm sure there are more out there. These all have different variations depending on how you're referring to a person and the context of course. This chart shows the main variations for these - http://uwm.edu/lgbtrc/wp-content/uploads/sites/162/2016/04/Pronoun-cards-2016-02-1024x585.png.

If you notice the link URL there, that's actually hosted on a University site. University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, in fact. So these are out there, there are already places requiring you to start restricting your speech, to basically have to ask each individual what their personal gender pronoun is, and then remember who likes to be called what, referred to as such, and what you shouldn't say around them for fear of offending them. Which, IMO - is borderline insanity.

And the problems are coming now, with the very real possibility that failing to do so is going to start becoming a crime. In essence, you must restrict your speech. I could be mistaken, but this may already be the case in some places in the US. I'm not certain on that though, so I won't say it's an actual problem yet. However, the wording in Bill C-16 in Canada, from what I've read, does make this a very potential problem.

Now, the idea behind this is to protect against discrimination and hate speech, mainly towards transgender people. And in that sense, and that sense alone, that's a great thing. Transgender people should have laws protecting their rights as basic human beings, and should be recognized in law as such. But I'm sorry, past their basic rights, trying to force these ridiculous speech restrictions on everyone is going way, WAY too far.

That is not saying that transgender people as a whole are the ones trying to force this. This is the government going overboard, and a very small number of people that are unfortunately being listened to and taken much too seriously. Speech restrictions as a form of common courtesy, that I can understand. You're still capable of deciding if you personally can handle whatever it is, or wish to bother doing so. After all, it's not like none of us swear, and choosing to do so isn't a crime in and of itself.

Personally, even if the worst case scenario presented here occurs, I'm going to refer to people who are male, or present themselves to the world as male, as basic male pronouns. Same with female. We're male, or we're female. I know there are already gender neutral pronouns out there, I don't use them. I never will. That's my choice, and it's not meant as a personal insult to anyone who does. I may think it's crazy, someone else may not. I will respect that choice of theirs, as much as I'm capable of doing and as long as they don't force it on me.

And that's the problem, again - this seems to be something that is trying to be forced on everyone, or will soon be. If there came a day I ran into someone who wished to be called fae, per, xe, ve, I want to be able to say that while I respect their choice, I have to decline. And I want that choice to not be a crime. I get that people don't want to offended, but unfortunately that's the world we live in, it's something we have to deal with as we grow up. It's something all of us have to realize as adults, we have differing opinions on things. Someone we meet, someone we like, or even love, can have an opinion that's offensive to us. It can even be something as simplistic as liking red over black licorice and vice versa.

We only have two genders, as a human species. We're male, or we're female. We have people who wish to change from one to the other, because the gender they were born into just didn't feel like the correct one. We even have some people who were born as both. But at the very core of everything, we have two genders. And personally, I don't see anything wrong with referring to a male or one who presents and identifies as a male, as the basic male pronouns we've had for the whole of human history really. Same with females.

And that's my thoughts on this subject.

[Lustful Bride]

I kind of agree, people have gotten abit too crazy with what they want to be called. Ive seen a few people that wanted to be reffered to as "It"....apparently they didn't realize this dehumanizes them and sets their movement backwards :/

Im all for calling a person He/She/They/Them but after that point I feel like they are taking it way too far.

Also you can be fined for calling a person the wrong pronoun? Guess we can just forget about free speech, :P



Okay this just makes me want to yell Its Time To Stop!  X3

[DominantPoet]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/05/17/you-can-be-fined-for-not-calling-people-ze-or-hir-if-thats-the-pronoun-they-demand-that-you-use/?utm_term=.a737fb2a2309

It is in New York at least, although it's only employers to employees. I can understand the need for the law in the sense that if a person identifies as female yet someone intentionally and constantly refers to them as male because they're a mtf transitional person and perhaps still look a bit manly despite their best efforts, and they continue to do so even after being told they identify as female, that can definitely be harassment. However, since the law isn't specific, it can also be used for the fae, e/ey, ve, xe and what not as well, which is where the problem comes in. At least from my viewpoint.

[Aethereal]

       As far as I'm concerned, there is only ever a need for a single singular pronoun - has worked just fine for my language. Given that English has traditionally had two of them, maybe a third, sex- and/or genderless strictly singular pronoun would be useful. More feels a bit pointless and can get needlessly confusing and difficult to remember (personally, I'd just get rid of "she" and call everyone "he," which actually has historically been done to some extent - people of unknown sex were always "he" in some contexts)...

        Some options for alternate pronouns feel quite bizarre. ...Per? Per is already both a word that is used in English and a semi-common name in some parts of the world. Those things make it an exceptionally bad choice for an alternate pronoun. "Ey" doesn't fare much better in that front. Nor "fae," which are mythical creatures.

       (And, by the way, I disagree on 'it' being dehumanizing; as far as I'm concerned, it's simply non-sexed. If people wish to call me an it, let them.)

[Saria]

If you aren't aware, there are parts of the US that have been implementing laws which can result in people being fined for not using a gender pronoun that any particular individual has expressed a desire to be called. From what I understand, these laws came about as a wish and desire to give trans people legal rights and protection. Except, of course, with the way many laws are written and all, some people are taking it to ridiculous, extreme levels. Which seems to be a real potential issue with Bill C-16 here as well.

...

And the problems are coming now, with the very real possibility that failing to do so is going to start becoming a crime. In essence, you must restrict your speech. I could be mistaken, but this may already be the case in some places in the US. I'm not certain on that though, so I won't say it's an actual problem yet. However, the wording in Bill C-16 in Canada, from what I've read, does make this a very potential problem.

I think you need to stop reading whatever sites you're getting that information about C-16 from. C-16 has literally nothing to do with pronouns. Or taking anything to "ridiculous, extreme levels".

The only thing C-16 does is add "gender identity or gender expression" to the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code (in Canada, all criminal law is handled at the federal level). That's it. That's literally all C-16 is. Literally adding those five words, or variations thereof, to a few places in the Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code. And I'm using the word "literally" literally. If you look at the changes the bill will make, it is literally just the insertion of those five words (more or less) at a few key places.

The places the words are getting inserted into are already basically lists of things you can't discriminate by. For example, race, sex, age, country of origin, sexual orientation, etc.. All the bill is doing is adding gender identity and expression to the list.

Here, let me show you an example. This is an excerpt of the text of the Criminal Code on things that should be taken into account when determining sentencing of crimes. Here it is before C-16:

evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or any other similar factor,

Here it is after C-16 (should it pass in its current form):

evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression, or on any other similar factor,

That's it. That's one of the two changes C-16 will make to the Criminal Code - the other being those same five words* inserted into the definition of "identifiable group". (*Actually, four words - the first "or" isn't needed.)

As for the Human Rights Act, C-16 will add those five words in two places there, too. Once in the introduction, and once in the prohibited grounds of discrimination list.

Don't even just take my word for it. Here is the actual Bill C-16, as it stands now. It's like 4 pages - only two of which are actual bill. There's not a single mention of pronouns, or "restricting" speech, or the government going mad totalitarian and crushing freedom.

C-16 does one thing, only one thing, and exactly one thing. It gives gender identity and expression the same protections afforded to race, religion, sex, age, sexual orientation, and so on. Anytime it's illegal to discriminate by one of those things, it will now be illegal to discriminate by gender. And where it's not illegal to discriminate by one of those things, it will not suddenly become illegal to discriminate by gender.

You won't be sent to jail or fined today for assuming someone is straight then finding out, to your embarrassment, that they're gay. You won't be sent to jail or fined after C-16 for assuming someone who "looks male" wants to be called him, when ze really wants to be called hir.

Bill C-16 is not the end of freedom, I promise.

[DominantPoet]

"gender identity and expression" would easily be able to include gender pronouns. It's far too vague. All it would need is a precedent set, which are already being set as I gave examples of in other parts of the world. I mean, one professor at the U of T expressed concern about this, and he's being labelled a pariah, attacked, and potentially losing his career. That's insane. And it's not even law yet, that's just from social pressure.

It's not like the law is always followed precisely to word as it is anyways. I'm not worried about the immediate effects, so much as the very real potential for this to be warped by what is becoming recognized as gender expression with gender pronouns. I've read everything you put forth there Saria, even before I made this topic. Gender pronouns are quite literally an expression of gender. If you could say they're not and give an argument as to why they're not, that would probably assuage my personal fears about this. But I personally don't see that happening.

[Blythe]

We only have two genders, as a human species. We're male, or we're female.

<snip>

We even have some people who were born as both.

This is factually wrong, whether you mean biological sex or gender identity. There are a variety of intersex conditions (Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia, to name a couple off the top of my head). Can't say that there are only two and then acknowledge intersex right after that. Doesn't make sense.

And as for gender identity--that's subjective, and as such, there's no real way to make the objective claim that there are only two gender identities. :/

Edit: edits made, my post was missing an important quote & sentence.

[DominantPoet]

This is factually wrong, whether you mean biological sex or gender identity. There are a variety of intersex conditions (Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia, to name a couple off the top of my head). And as for gender identity--that's subjective, and as such, there's no real way to make the objective claim that there are only two gender identities. :/

Biologically. X and Y chromosones. Intersex conditions don't really negate that IMO. Androgen Insensitivity still recognizes it as just two, male and female hormones, man and woman. Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia can cause ambiguous sexuality, yes, namely with sexual organs and such, but it's still inherently male and female. Having a penis but no sperm due to it doesn't stop making you a male. No more than being a woman and lacking the ability to give birth would stop one from being female. Amibiguity doesn't negate sex, again, IMO.

Gender identity can be subjective to a degree, mainly because a male can be born identifying more as a female in many ways, and transitioning to such. However, objectively, I still say there's only two genders. Male, and female. There are conditions which can cause ambiguity as to which one any one person is, and one person can wish to change from one to the other, by all means. I don't really see conditions that cause mixtures of the two as negating this as fact. If you believe otherwise, by all means. I don't agree though.

Edit - "Can't say that there are only two and then acknowledge intersex right after that. Doesn't make sense." Well, my way of thinking on this is that putting peanut butter and jelly together doesn't negate them being peanut butter and jelly separately. Intersex being a thing simply means that two genders are combined together, it doesn't make a new gender to my way of thinking.

[Saria]

"gender identity and expression" would easily be able to include gender pronouns. It's far too vague.

No, it really isn't. You're only looking at those five words, but they are not the meat the law. They are just two more items in a list. The meat of the law is the bits that describe what discrimination is, and when it is not acceptable (which is not "always", it is only in a limited set of circumstances). That part isn't changing. That part has been used without any serious issue since Canada first created its own laws. If you didn't have a problem with discrimination laws before C-16, you won't have a problem with them after.

I don't know where this "vague" canard is coming from. Gender identity and expression is no more "vague" than many of the other things that list. Race is vague, yet we've had laws against racial discrimination for decades. Look at that, free speech still exists. No one's ever been imprisoned or fined for being an accidental racist.

I mean, one professor at the U of T expressed concern about this, and he's being labelled a pariah, attacked, and potentially losing his career.

That's not actually what happened. That guy went on YouTube and made a rant about "political correctness", and said some things that pissed a lot of people off. (Also, he said a lot of dumb things, like that expressing the opinion that gender is fixed to biological sex will get him arrested, and that accidentally using the wrong pronoun will get him arrested. Pretty standard YouTube crap, but anyway.) It's a free country, he had a right to do that. But the people who got pissed off also have a right to be pissed off. People complained to the University... again, which they have a right to do.

His job is not being threatened, at least last I heard. It should be, and it probably will be, if he keeps it up his brain-dead crusade. But not for the reason he thinks, or that you're implying. Last I heard, he wasn't even being investigated. But whatever happens, this has nothing to do with the law. It's an employee of an institution loudly and proudly declaring he's going to be an asshole to that institution's paying customers for literally no damn reason but his own personal politics, and expecting not to face any consequences for that. Which is patently ridiculous.

What do you think should happen to me if I decided that I was going to call every one who came into my workplace "Miss", even when the customers and other employees ask me to stop and address them according to their gender and marital status (and for the moment, let's just pretend there are only the two "standard" genders, so this isn't even about those big tables)? You don't think I should be fired for being a jerkass on the job? Do you think my employer should tolerate my rude and ignorant behaviour? You think I have a constitutional right to behave like that at work?

I can be a virulent racist on my own time, consequence free. It's a free country. I can have a truckload of really nasty and ignorant opinions about race and racial politics, and I can freely live by them. So long as I don't threaten or harass anyone, I can be the world's biggest racist on my own time. But at work? When I'm obligated by law to be non-discriminatory? Of course I should face consequences for being a racist there.

Nothing substantial will change after C-16. You or Peterson can have whatever opinions or ideologies about gender and gender politics that you please, and you are free to live by them. You don't want to respect people's preferred pronoun? Don't. It's a free country. But if you think you can use your workplace as a soapbox to exercise those opinions... think again.

It's not like the law is always followed precisely to word as it is anyways.

Where has the law not been followed precisely to the word? Do you have any examples of illegal discrimination not being dealt with by the law? Or something being dealt with when it's not really illegal?

Perhaps what's happening is that the law is being followed quite rigorously, but you misunderstand the law, and thus think it's not.

Gender pronouns are quite literally an expression of gender. If you could say they're not and give an argument as to why they're not, that would probably assuage my personal fears about this. But I personally don't see that happening.

You're asking the wrong question. It not an issue of whether pronouns are a part of gender identity (they are, but that's irrelevant). What matters is whether what you're doing rises to the level of discrimination. The issue is not "pronouns" it's "discrimination", and C-16 does nothing to change the definition of discrimination.

By analogy, it doesn't matter whether this or that hair style is part of someone's racial identity. It just matters if you're discriminating by race.

If you persist in calling someone the n-word even after they've asked you to stop - or hell, let's not even use that, let's say "coloured", or "mongoloid", or something like that - if someone has asked you to not call them that, and you continue to do it anyway... yeah, you're being a racist asshole. Normally, that's fine - rude and ignorant, but not illegal. But if you are in a position where you are legally forbidden from discriminating... yeah, you do deserve to face penalties. You can rant all you want, as Peterson does, about your right to have your own opinions or to disagree with the politics behind "coloured" versus "black" versus "African American"... but when you are in a position where you are forbidden to discriminate - which is actually a very limited set of circumstances, really, not "every time you open your mouth" - you do not have the right to express your opinion on race (or any opinions, usually).

The exact same will be true for gender identity. When you are in one of those circumstances where you are forbidden from discriminating, you do not have the right to express your opinions on the politics of gender. When you are not in a situation where discrimination is forbidden, do as you please. You probably won't be popular for refusing to respect people. But what would you expect?

[DominantPoet]

"His job is not being threatened, at least last I heard. It should be, and it probably will be, if he keeps it up his brain-dead crusade. But not for the reason he thinks, or that you're implying. Last I heard, he wasn't even being investigated. But whatever happens, this has nothing to do with the law. It's an employee of an institution loudly and proudly declaring he's going to be an asshole to that institution's paying customers for literally no damn reason but his own personal politics, and expecting not to face any consequences for that. Which is patently ridiculous."

I think given this, it's safe to say we'll not agree on much in general on this subject, Saria. Suffice to say, I do not think I can use my workplace, if I had one that dealt with the public on a general basis that is, as a soapbox to exercise my personal opinions. I do truly hope that the law, if it passes, doesn't get abused and no precedence is set for it to be warped like I fear it may be.

As for the vague canard, race is not really all that vague. It's a classification based on physical traits, ancestry, genetics, social relations, where you were born. And I don't really see anyone demanding that others start referring to them as overtly ridiculous terms instead of what has existed for so long in that regard. I do, however, see people doing this with gender. Religions have to be recognized, races have to be recognized, I just don't want to see people getting criminally charged or their lives ruined because they refuse to refer to someone as something ridiculous like Xe, Xem, Xyr, Xrys, Xemself. Workplace or not. I view that as childish speech restriction, and abuse of this law that can easily come into power.

Hopefully, if such a case goes to court, the court will rightly point out that is not a recognized gender. Or a traditional one, or however you want to put it. My worry, however, is that it will. If the law was worded as such to state "recognized" gender identity, I wouldn't be as worried. It doesn't, it in fact leaves it vague and open with "identity and expression".

[Nadir]

Veks has a video about the subject of gender and how there's not just the two; you should watch it DoPo

https://youtu.be/KQF9GU3AYMw

[Blythe]

Biologically. X and Y chromosones. Intersex conditions don't really negate that IMO. Androgen Insensitivity still recognizes it as just two, male and female hormones, man and woman. Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia can cause ambiguous sexuality, yes, namely with sexual organs and such, but it's still inherently male and female. Having a penis but no sperm due to it doesn't stop making you a male. No more than being a woman and lacking the ability to give birth would stop one from being female. Amibiguity doesn't negate sex, again, IMO.

Never said it negated sex, just that it could be considered in some manner distinct, essentially. That doesn't negate male and female--why would it? Just saying that if we can have physical deviation from cismale and cisfemale that can be distinct in its own right, why not in terms of gender identity as well? For me, the existence of intersexed individuals also validates the notion that non-binary individuals exist and identify the way they do.

When it comes to preferred pronouns for others, it's really not that hard to respect them. Most cisgender people can go their whole lives without ever meeting even one trans* person. Trans* individuals aren't that common. It's not rocket science to learn new pronouns & their usage. And as a transman, I try to give people leeway while they're endeavoring to remember to use the ones I prefer (granted, an easier task than for some non-binaries, as mine are he/him/his)--intent behind usage matters. It's something I try to keep in mind. I'm more concerned with deliberate misgendering, which seems disrespectful at best.

C-16 doesn't look like you'll get fined just for using the wrong pronoun. Looks more like it's designed to prevent firing trans* people just for being trans*, to prevent other outright discrimination, etc.

Edit: At any rate, I should bow out of this one. Wishing everyone in the thread well. Cheers.

[Lustful Bride]

I wonder if there is a way both sides could compromise.

Because some people are going so far as to say there are 20+ Genders. That's gonna be impossible for people to handle in any practical way.

I believe fully that you should be what you feel as, and so long as you are respectful about it then it should be respected in turn. But at the same time some people are pushing it abit too far. Surely we could find some common ground.

[DominantPoet]

Never said it negated sex, just that it could be considered in some manner distinct, essentially. That doesn't negate male and female--why would it? Just saying that if we can have physical deviation from cismale and cisfemale that can be distinct in its own right, why not in terms of gender identity as well? For me, the existence of intersexed individuals also validates the notion that non-binary individuals exist and identify the way they do.

When it comes to preferred pronouns for others, it's really not that hard to respect them. Most cisgender people can go their whole lives without ever meeting even one trans* person. Trans* individuals aren't that common. It's not rocket science to learn new pronouns & their usage. And as a transman, I try to give people leeway while they're endeavoring to remember to use the ones I prefer (granted, an easier task than for some non-binaries, as mine are he/him/his)--intent behind usage matters. It's something I try to keep in mind. I'm more concerned with deliberate misgendering, which seems disrespectful at best.

C-16 doesn't look like you'll get fined just for using the wrong pronoun. Looks more like it's designed to prevent firing trans* people just for being trans*, to prevent other outright discrimination, etc.

Sorry if it seemed like I was saying you did, I didn't mean to. My original point was that, inherently, there are only two sexes we have as a species, male, and female. We don't have fae, Xe, Xy and all these others that some people are requesting they be addressed as. Those are not genders in my eyes, but with the way the law is worded, as I mentioned to Saria and as is my ultimate point with this thread, I fear they may be down the road. Which I find ridiculous.

I respect pronouns if they make sense to be respected. If someone wants to be referred to as they instead of he or she, or it even, by all means. But there has to be a limit, a cut off point, otherwise what's to stop people from such things like saying they want to be referred to as "Kingly" and claiming that's their expression of their sexuality? I've seen people state that, mockingly, mind you, but I wouldn't put it past someone else out there to try it seriously.

I'm not saying I want to outright offend anyone, that's the last thing I want. But there has to be rationality. Cisgender is about my personal limit, these extra pronouns that I've been hearing about are too much, IMO.

"C-16 doesn't look like you'll get fined just for using the wrong pronoun. Looks more like it's designed to prevent firing trans* people just for being trans*, to prevent other outright discrimination, etc."

True, on the surface, that's the intent. And I hope that it doesn't become abused if going into law. Everyone deserves rights and protection.

@Dim - I have watched it, actually before I even realized it was by Veks, I saw it on YT. I quite like it. It doesn't change my opinion on this subject though, unfortunately.

@Bride - That's my hope with this thread, in a way.

[Anteros]

We learn new words so often, especially since society and technology are changing so fast, yet there are always people to get angry about having to do it when it come to showing basic consideration to minorities. 
In the end, all these arguments come to is: "I shouldn't have to make an effort or change the way I act, just to accommodate someone else's well-being."
:-(

[ReijiTabibito]

We learn new words so often, especially since society and technology are changing so fast, yet there are always people to get angry about having to do it when it come to showing basic consideration to minorities. 

According to a Washington Post article from 2014, white males are 31% of the total populace of the US.  Does the fact that it is not over 50% mean they are a minority, or how do you define minority in cases of population if they are not?

In the end, all these arguments come to is: "I shouldn't have to make an effort or change the way I act, just to accommodate someone else's well-being."
:-(

That argument runs both ways, though.  As far as I understand it, the specific way you're using the argument is to say 'people who refuse to utilize the requested gender pronouns of an individual are just lazy and don't want to bother having to change their behavior just for this person or that person.'

It runs the opposite way: 'people who insist on others utilizing their specifically-chosen pronoun are over-entitled and don't care about the habits and behaviors and typical customs of the people they interact with.'

And if you're going to make the argument that this is about the well-being and comfort of a given set of people, then let me ask you this: how do we prioritize the comfort and well-being of various sets of people?  By their percentage of the population?  By their difference from 'the norm?'  Or by some other sort of criterion that I'm not aware of?

A June article of the NY Times says that approximately 1.4 million Americans identify as transgendered.  (More precisely, they identify as a gender that does not match their birth sex.)  As of 2014, the population of the United States was 319 million people, as stated by the US Census Bureau.  That means about 1 out of every 300 people in the US is transgendered.

I live in Nowhere, Montana, which has a population of, let's say, 3000 people.  By the statistical average, that means there will be 10 transgendered individuals living in Nowhere.

Which is easier?  To get 10 people to change their behavior?  Or to get the other 2990 people to change their behavior, for those specific 10?


Personally, if you ask me - we use he, him, his; she, her, hers for all men and women of a given background.  You could be a Chinese man living in Guandong province who farms for a living or Steve Wozniak, they both are addressed as he.  Establish one set of gender pronouns for people who do not identify as male or female, bam, done.

Also, DP, heard about Prof. Jordan Peterson at U of Toronto and his protest of this bill down this way, and saw a few videos of people trying to get him to change his mind about it.  Whatever happened to 'everyone's entitled to an opinion'?

[Lustful Bride]

We learn new words so often, especially since society and technology are changing so fast, yet there are always people to get angry about having to do it when it come to showing basic consideration to minorities. 
In the end, all these arguments come to is: "I shouldn't have to make an effort or change the way I act, just to accommodate someone else's well-being."
:-(

And see stuff like that just doesn't help your argument. Its like your saying "Oh if you don't agree with me then your just a cruel person without any empathy for other people!".  Your alienating people who want to have a discussion with by pretty much brushing off their arguments.

That's not the way to work this out and come to a better understanding for both sides. It just comes off as you just sweeping everyone who disagrees under the rug and labeling them all transphobic or bigoted. :/

Now don't get me I am not calling you that but...you have to try and understand how people might feel about this, constantly worried that if they use the worng pronoun someone is going to just explode on them, calling them Transphobic, hateful, or discriminating against them just because they misspoke. And lets be honest, as much as we all claim stereotypes aren't true, there is always one person out there who lives out the stereotype and sets everyone else back.

Which is easier?  To get 10 people to change their behavior?  Or to get the other 2990 people to change their behavior, for those specific 10?


Personally, if you ask me - we use he, him, his; she, her, hers for all men and women of a given background.  You could be a Chinese man living in Guandong province who farms for a living or Steve Wozniak, they both are addressed as he.  Establish one set of gender pronouns for people who do not identify as male or female, bam, done.

Also, DP, heard about Prof. Jordan Peterson at U of Toronto and his protest of this bill down this way, and saw a few videos of people trying to get him to change his mind about it.  Whatever happened to 'everyone's entitled to an opinion'?

I don't think anyone should have to change, I think it should be more "Look lets both meet eachother halfway here." and work something out that can benefit both parties more.

Lets be reasonable here, we aren't like Congress that throws a tantrum when it doesn't get what it wants and goes back to its offices to burn money and suck their thumbs. :)

[Beguile's Mistress]

At one point we had a work place where a dozen different preferences where advertised and it completely polarized our work place.  People began avoiding others because they had difficulties remembering the correct pronoun.  People avoided using pronouns and would only use the proper name of the one they were talking to or about.  If we put two transgender individuals on the same team we often ended up with a situation where their preferences were in conflict.  We left it up to the group of individuals to figure out a way the rest of us could comply with their needs and the list was made.  Names and pronoun preferences were delineated for reference.  It works for most of us but we do have to deal with new hires that think it is an insult.

When you have several hundred people to supervise it becomes challenging and frustrating to find ways to keep from offending anyone.

[Anteros]

And see stuff like that just doesn't help your argument. Its like your saying "Oh if you don't agree with me then your just a cruel person without any empathy for other people!".  Your alienating people who want to have a discussion with by pretty much brushing off their arguments.

That's not the way to work this out and come to a better understanding for both sides. It just comes off as you just sweeping everyone who disagrees under the rug and labeling them all transphobic or bigoted. :/

Now don't get me I am not calling you that but...you have to try and understand how people might feel about this, constantly worried that if they use the worng pronoun someone is going to just explode on them, calling them Transphobic, hateful, or discriminating against them just because they misspoke. And lets be honest, as much as we all claim stereotypes aren't true, there is always one person out there who lives out the stereotype and sets everyone else back.

Constantly worried? Why? I prefer people to use they/them as my pronouns, but how often is it likely to come up in a conversation? How often are the people talking to me likely to use 3rd person pronouns? How likely are they to use them incorrectly after being informed of my preferences? How likely are they to accidentally continue misgendering me after making a mistake and being corrected?
Besides, it's not like people using non binary pronouns are legion, so where does this constant worry come from?

Really, if someone persists in misgendering a trans person after being told not to, how is that not transphobic? It's one thing to slip up but another to willingly create a pattern of aggression.
If we consistently act like bigots, it's just hypocritical to bristle when we're called out on it. It's not acceptable to make being called a bigot a bigger deal than acting like one.

[Anteros]

At one point we had a work place where a dozen different preferences where advertised and it completely polarized our work place.  People began avoiding others because they had difficulties remembering the correct pronoun.  People avoided using pronouns and would only use the proper name of the one they were talking to or about.  If we put two transgender individuals on the same team we often ended up with a situation where their preferences were in conflict.  We left it up to the group of individuals to figure out a way the rest of us could comply with their needs and the list was made.  Names and pronoun preferences were delineated for reference.  It works for most of us but we do have to deal with new hires that think it is an insult.

When you have several hundred people to supervise it becomes challenging and frustrating to find ways to keep from offending anyone.

:o
Sounds rough. Really, how hard is it to ask for a quick reminder, or to offer an apology when mistaken?

[Beguile's Mistress]

:o
Sounds rough. Really, how hard is it to ask for a quick reminder, or to offer an apology when mistaken?

A lot depends on the attitudes of the people involved.  One of our associates would begin shrieking at the other person every time someone made a mistake. 

You can tell it's going to be bad when other transgender associates have trouble keeping up with the preferences or ask to be reassigned to a different group to get away from someone.

It has become an ongoing source of stress for all of us.

[ReijiTabibito]

There is something else I would like to point out about these specific pronouns: they are third-person pronouns.  IE, you do not use them when you are directly addressing the person.  When I talk to my SO, I don't use 'she' or 'her' in-conversation unless I am talking about another person.  Theoretically, the only way for someone to overhear these pronouns used as a form of address for themselves is to be privy to a conversation that does not directly involve you - whether on the phone or e-mail or in-person - though you are the subject matter.

I note this because one of the more common arguments I hear about why we have to use specific gender-neutral pronouns for specific persons is: "Well, when you call me that, it offends me/is disrespectful/etc."  In theory, you should not be hearing anyone address you that way, because of the nature of the pronoun.  Now, yes, you might overhear it anyways in a conversation between two people talking about you, but my point is that it's not like I walk into my boss and get called "Hey, he, get over here."

[Beguile's Mistress]

And what do you tell the person who is offended when you say, "I'll call you and let you know what time you'll be needed."

We had a person devolve into an epic tantrum because you was the wrong word.

[Lustful Bride]

Really, if someone persists in misgendering a trans person after being told not to, how is that not transphobic? It's one thing to slip up but another to willingly create a pattern of aggression.

People mess up though. And the more names and words and terms that they have to add on the more it increases the chance of people having to mess up. :P

If we consistently act like bigots, it's just hypocritical to bristle when we're called out on it. It's not acceptable to make being called a bigot a bigger deal than acting like one.

Yeah except its not right to call someone a bigot when they aren't one, since it devalues the word in instances of real bigotry. And sometimes people do things and don't realize that they have done wrong or honestly don't know any better. Some people (myself included :P) Just have their foots in their mouths 24/7

A lot depends on the attitudes of the people involved.

You can tell it's going to be bad when other transgender associates have trouble keeping up with the preferences or ask to be reassigned to a different group to get away from someone.

It has become an ongoing source of stress for all of us.

+1.

And what do you tell the person who is offended when you say, "I'll call you and let you know what time you'll be needed."

We had a person devolve into an epic tantrum because you was the wrong word.

*nods* Lets all be clear here though. The Majority of Trans people and etc are not the problem. These one who take it to the extreme are though and give a bad name and create this tension. Though it also comes from the otherside as well, since both people are to blame. It takes two to tango.

[RedRose]

As a European, this is yet another thing I'm very unfamiliar with. I would probably be considered rude in some American circles. I do love everyone as long as they don't wish me harm, but I couldn't wrap my mind around new pronouns. I also use (in French) words like blind, dwarf, black person, white person... Because those are the words. There was actually a trend to say "de couleur" (of colour) instead of black, and people were taking offense that it made it sound like "black" was bad and had to be glossed over. I agree, for what it's worth. FTR insults (the N word) aren't tolerated outside of racist circles, though the word remains on the "tête de nègre" pastry, or the Agatha Christie book "Dix petits nègres"...

Can I agree that it does devaluate real racism and aggression when everything is seen as such?