I recently took a job as a county program manager for a nonprofit that has its main office in Portland, Oregon with satellite offices throughout the state. The executive team and Board of this organization values inclusion and equity for all. They require all employees to participate in equity training around race, gender identity, gender expression, and more.
Some staff have taken to introducing themselves in this way: "Hi, I'm Stacy and my preferred pronouns are she, her, and hers." Or, in the case of one non-binary staff person, "Hi, I'm Joan and my preferred pronouns are They, Them, and Theirs." Some staff have already begun including their preferred pronouns in their email signature lines. At our recent statewide, all-staff meeting, it was announced that the Board is considering requiring all employees to include their preferred pronouns in their signature lines.
In case you are not sure of the reasoning behind introducing yourself with your preferred pronouns, it is this. Some people's gender identity or gender expression do not match their assigned sex or their looks do not conform to our society's expectation of gender
By introducing ourselves with our preferred pronouns, we avoid faulty assumptions and the embarrassment of mis-identifying soneone.
I for one have no problem giving due respect to gender confused people. However I draw the line at requiring everybody to announce their gender. If a person doesn't announce their gender up front, then by default it should be the obvious.
Thank you for responding, Onus. I agree with you that it shouldn't be required, but I'm going to play sevil's advocate a bit.
Do you think an employer can run their business as they see fit, as long as it is within legal bounds? Do you think that if an employee does not want to identify their pronouns, they should simply find other employment?
I believe in freedom of association. Employers should be able to hire and fire who they want (as long as there is no proof of wrongful termination), and they should be able to do business or refuse business with whoever they want.
The same goes for employees, if they want to work there they have to follow the rules. No one is forcing them to be there.
We have a transgender in our family. I've made my feeling known about it, and we still are pleasant to one another. I have to be honest. This is one of the most ridiculous things I've heard in a long time. Guess what? I'm one of the ones who is not going to pretend that a male can become a female or a female can become a male. Why? I choose reality. No matter how you mutilate your body, no matter what drugs you pump into it to changes things, a man is a man and a woman is a woman. You can't change the DNA or chromosomes of a body. Transgender is a psychological problem known as gender dysphoria. No matter how you try to ignore reality, it will always be there. Transgender pronouns? I wish those who think of these things would spend their time doing something productive.
No, you can’t change DNA and chromosomes. But sex and gender are different things. Being transgender means just that... someone identifies as the opposite gender. Since gender is a social construct it actually isn’t impossible to change.
Transgender does not equal gender dysphoria. A really important part of gender dysphoria, and the reason it’s in the DSM, is the distinction of significant distress associated with identifying as the opposite gender. Not all people who are transgender experience gender dysphoria.
What’s your idea of productive? Is everything you do productive? How do you know they don’t spend the rest of their time doing something you’d deem productive?
I seem to remember a story about a place in Canada charging people with a crime for miss gendering people (calling them by the wrong pronoun), but as far as I am concerned if it makes them more comfortable and doesn’t interfere with me in any way then I’ll call people whatever they want to be called. Just as long as they know that people outside of that company will most likely not be so willing to do the same thing and they shouldn’t correct a customer. Although “they” makes them sound a little crazy. Also, if they want that, then I want to be referred to as Mister Collins Sir and don’t forget the Sir. Does anyone remember the uproar over Ms. Instead of Miss or Mrs.? This will either fade away or become a part of the social norm. Just as long as they don’t forget the “Sir” when addressing me.
Yes, I personally am willing to use a person's preferred pronouns out of respect for their feelings. I think it is wrong for an employer to require me to introduce myself with my preferred pronouns, though.
I mean, I don't like the idea of it being a requirement of the job, but I'd do it though. No harm done.
And I'd definitely use a person's prefferred pronouns.
I could be wrong (and I usually am), but this could just be their way of getting past the awkward so they can get to what really matters. Although working with people that are just looking to find something to be offended by could cripple a company making this policy a gateway to more significant problems.
You're right about the reason for the policy. But I don't think anyone is looking for a reason to be offended. The employee who prefers "they" pronouns, for example, does not cause a ruckus if someone refers to them as "her."
My understanding is that, if everyone introduces themselves with their pronouns, it takes the pressure off those who are already considered by some to be odd because they don't fit into a proscribed gender.
Again, I feel this should be optional, not required, even though the reason for implementing it is to show respect as defined by the employer.
This reminds me of two things. The Cisgender argument and the movie The Incredibles. For most of us, the term Cisgender (identify as the gender or sex you were born with) would be referred to as normal and anyone that didn’t fit that as abnormal (trans fill in the blank). , By having a term that describes very states of sexuality it makes it easier for those who don’t fit in the norm to fit in it or as Syndrome said in the Incredibles, “once everyone is super then no one will be,” or when everyone is removed from the concept of normal then the abnormality (or minority) will be the new normality (or majority).
PrettyPanther, remember, you did ask for thoughts.
I think that is the silliest damn thing I have ever heard - introducing yourself with your preferred pronouns. Sheesh.
Alright. I'm against the idea of expanding pronouns for an individual past he/she. Primarily because we have two genders. But, we are all unique. These people who feel that the don't fit into some cookie cutter idea of male/female aren't new to our world. You can't just create new names because those new ones won't fit everyone who thinks they didn't fit the old ones, for long.
Gender neutrality attempts will not change the way we look at each other. It won't change who we are. It won't make us more accepting. And it won't stop work place discrimination.
If someone asks me to call them by some new pronoun, I'll do it out of courtesy. But, I'd have accepted them, as they were, by any other pronoun I called them by.
Edit. And what of the confusion generated? For those who accept a biological reality? Those who might fit a zhe/zshe/them definition but accept that he or she is the pronoun that works biologically? Are they to be forced into accepting the new pronoun from those scrambling to be 'politically correct'?
Another thought. I've always been gender neutral in the workplace. Work, not clothes and appearance, matter most. If dress does not affect the output, I'm choosing full comfort. If I took a new job, by the way I dress and comport myself during work hours, a person striving to be 'correct' would never take me for an alpha female. Must I suffer through someone mistaking me for dressing as a zshe or zhe?
To be honest Pretty Panther, if a gender confused person showed up seeking employment within our small business, identifying themselves as “they”, I’d be asking “They who”, do you have an entire crew seeking employment? Bring them in, we can use all the help we can get right now, things are booming. If he said “her”, I’d say, yes bring her in too, ya’ll can carpool!
I'm sorry but this is just silly. If a new co-worker suddenly introduced themselves to me this way, my reply would probably be, "Ummmm...OK. Tell ya what, I'm just gonna call you 'Hey you,' it will save us both time and trouble."
Thank you all for responding.
If your employer instituted a policy that required you to introduce yourself with your preferred pronouns and include them in your email signature line, how would you respond?
Would you comply without question? Would you complain? Would you quit? Would you feel your employer is completely within their rights to require this of their employees?
I wouldn't comply.
I'd probably feign a little ignorance and go with "mister" or "sir".
I can't wait to see future memos.
'To all he,she, zhe, ze, them and all pronouns not yet identified that may come into existence at any time during the life of this memo, or may come into existence at any future time this memo may be read from archived files'
And what if you were fired because you refused to comply with company rules....? Would you simply move on, since your employer would be fully within their rights to expect behavioral compliance?
Edit: So would you be understanding of an NFL player should they choose not to comply with their employer's demand to show respect in the manner the employer deems proper??
I've already started that players should be allowed to do as they please. No matter how ignorant it might seem to me. I've already taken my action in response to their protests.
But, not being an entertainer or performance artist, my workplace is different. I'll go with Freddy's suggestion and just call everyone hey you and be done with it, if compelled speech is decided to be enforceable, by law.
Actually, if forced to use recently created pronouns, I'll use 'the royal highness' for mine. I should be allowed to create one too, it would be gender neutral and be uniquely me. So no one else has a right to use it.
It's me again Margaret!
Yes, PrettyPanther, I would comply. And, I would accept it as a requirement of the job, but I would begin looking for another job because I would not like working in an environment that would require such an action.
I think it is a good thing to train to be sensitive to such issues, (whether I agree with them or not), and I think it is only right to be courteous to folks that have such issues, but I still think the requirement you described is silly, and I would not be comfortable working there.
What would happen if when asked this...a worker took a knee and said it was their right as an American to engage in a Pronoun Protest at their place of employment?
Sorry, struggling to take this serious. I'll stop commenting.
It's real, Mike. An employer is considering requiring this. How would you respond if it was your employer?
As I understand it, courts have forbidden union activism during working hours - employers may fire a person for engaging in such activity - but it's OK during break time.
Is it germane? Given that it is outside the view of the public and doesn't affect public perception of the activity, is it germane to the question?
I don't understand your comment. What is "it", i.e., "Is it germane? Given that it is outside the view of the public and doesn't affect public perception of the activity, is it germane to the question?"
Sorry - maybe I've gotten lost here. Hate that I usually can't use the "threaded" view any more.
Was referring to protesting while on the job, in this case Mike's question about protesting the requirement for personal pronouns.
Okay, I'll try and be real. If I had an employer who required this I would have to decide it I give in to it to maintain my job, or go against it and risk enduring the wrath of those who had this idea and the management who supported it. It would depend on the job. I would not agree with it. I would speak with my manager in private and explain my feelings of not being able to go along with this because I find it ridiculous. I would ask about what happens now. Myself, I would start looking for another job or starting a business. Other people have so much invested in their job this would be very difficult for them. I believe many people would go along with it for their job whether they believe in it or not.
People are free to be who they want to be. I have not qualms with people being who they want to be. But, if you start labeling and placing identities in the workplace or schools, it is just plain silly.
Good discussion. I have a question. If I told my employer that I felt inside that I was a member of the British Monarchy, and I wanted to be referred to as "My Lord." when being addressed by other employees, and management agreed. How many would then address me as "My Lord or "His Lordship" when requested to do this by the employer?
Like you said before, it would probably depend on how badly they wanted their jobs and whether it was a deeply held conviction one way or the other.
Just like with being forced to display respect according to someone else's definition, whether for the flag or for someone's pronoun preferences.
"the flag?" going a little off topic. We're talking about choosing how someone addresses you. I think it would be kind of neat to go around an office and have others say "Would my lord like to go to lunch with us?" or "My lord there is a meeting at 2 pm and you need to attend it, " "My lord would you like to participate in the football pool?" Would make going to work a pretty interesting experience.
Mike mike mike , are you suggesting using common sense in this debate ?
Ahem, I have intentionally been ignoring the way you and others are trivializing something that represents a person's core identity because I really didn't feel like getting into it, but....
Your asking to be referred to as "my lord" as though it equates to an individual's sense of their own authentic identity is an example of the ridicule transgender folks face daily.
The suicide rate for transgender people is very high, in large part because of this type of rejection of who they are.
Want to have a fact injected here ? Trans- genders suffer the same suicide rates AFTER operations than as they do before , 41% ,Fact .
Maybe it is a mental illness?
Does this prove it is a mental disorder? We need to stop pretending a person can change their sex. All they can do is mutilate their bodies and pump them full of drugs to give the illusion they have changed into a different gender. Their DNA and chromosomes remain of the gender of their natural body. We have to quit pretending. If a person identifies with another gender, then I can identify with the British gentry. My Lord, if you please.
Without a full medical examination, chromosome and hormone analysis, and a personal conversation, you cannot know for certain someone's biological sex.
In terms of Chromosomes, all the women in this photo are male, i.e. they have XY chromosomes*.
Their physical characteristics are due to Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (AIS).
In terms of gender, all these women identify as female.
Would you call each of them "he" just because their chromosome pattern says "XY" instead of "XX"?
*This photo is in the public domain because the women explicitly wanted AIS to be represented by "real, proud people" instead of stigmatizing pictures with obscured faces(1).
(1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androgen_ … hids01.JPG
So, these women suffer from a physical condition. This is a bit off topic and I don't see how it has anything to do with transgender. A transgender person is someone who is born with all the normal physical characteristics of a gender then mutilates their body and pumps it full of drugs to appear to be the opposite gender. Guess what? A hermaphrodite is also not transgender. I think to be transgender you would have to be one specific gender first.
Sure. You're right, being transgender is different to being intersex (the term currently used in place of hermaphrodite).
But you seemed to be suggesting that chromosomes etc. are what determine gender -"Their DNA and chromosomes remain of the gender of their natural body".
So I was pointing out that people who happen to be intersex are "naturally" born with different variations of chromosomes, hormones, genitals etc, and identify with different genders (or none at all).
So someone's biological sex doesn't necessarily determine their gender. And you can't necessarily determine someone's biological sex by their physical appearance anyway. So biological sex and physical appearance are not necessarily the best way to determine gender.
I will have to disagree with you. "biological sex doesn't necessarily determine their gender"...sorry, biological sex DOES determine your gender. Yes, there are physical anomalies that occur with some people. There is a condition where some people are born with vestigial tails and more. It is very simple to me. You are either male or a female . This makes you either a man or a woman. This determines your gender. When a woman with brunette hair bleaches it and makes it blonde, it doesn't make her a blonde. It makes her a brunette who has bleached her hair to look blonde.
"You are either male or a female . . . This determines your gender".
With respect, our understanding of the relationship between biological sex and gender has moved on since the time this view was considered accurate.
We know that, even controlling for hormones taken, certain brain structures in transgender women are similar to those found in cisgender women. Ditto transgender men in relation to cisgender men(1).
We know transgender women have a longer androgen receptor gene than cisgender men, which therefore does not bind testosterone as well, possibly preventing masculinization of the brain, which evidently impacts gender identity(2).
We know transgender men have a variation in gene distribution like cisgender men and unlike cisgender women, which evidently impacts gender identity(3).
And we know that people with AIS (born with the male configuration of chromosomes XY) consistently identity as women(4).
So although we still aren't sure of the exact mechanisms that determine gender identity, it has become increasingly clear it's not determined by biological sex alone, i.e. sexual organs, chromosomes etc.
But back to the question of preferred pronouns, I think the question this raises is how relevant are "male" / "female" pronouns anyway?
I read a sci fi novel recently by Ann Leckie where a society didn't have the concept of gender, and used the same pronoun for everyone. The effect on the reader is that you never know if the character being referred to is a male or female. What's amazing is that it makes no difference. Not knowing the character's sex, didn't diminish my ability to become invested in the inner lives of the characters at all. May gave even enhanced it.
Perhaps the English language will evolve in such a way that gendered pronouns become obsolete and everyone will be referred to with gender-neutral pronouns like ey (he/she), eir (his/ her), em (him/ her). Aside from the unfamiliarity of it, I wonder how much difference that would actually make in practice.
(4) https://www.the-scientist.com/features/ … rain-34758
I don't think it, ("the flag"), is off topic readmikenow. I think PrettyPanther's first response on the thread indicated exactly what the topic was.
Ha, ha!! I would like to me called "Empress." The supervisor says, "Empress? Would you like to take your 15 minute break?"
You all have to admit , There seems to be some confusion on the left and there's nothing that can be done about it ?
GA, where are you? This is an unwarranted interjection of partisan politics in an otherwise thoughtful discussion.
That can be said for like half of what horse posts, you can’t expect GA to spend that much time babysitting!
Agree. Just razzing him a bit because he took Hard Sun to task for bringing Trump into the conversation about NFL owners requiring players to be present and stand for the national anthem. He's purple, you know. ;-)
Hi PrettyPanther, sorry, but I am still digesting my last helping of humble pie. You are on your own on this one. But from the looks of that meme, it should be a piece of cake.
There is no scientific proof of mental illness.
I have done my research. Mental health labels are superficial and so are their statistics.
And that includes the CDC ? Right ! The facts are out there if you chose to ignore them , that's on you . Ignoring this reality doesn't seem wise for a "researcher ".
Excellent point. I have debates with psychologists and what their studies prove all the time. I agree with you. Mental health labels are superficial as well as their statistics.
I am sorry you feel that way. All the best to you.
I suggest that if you really are a researcher and care about the only tool required of research , Truth . That you have to accept that with the absolute highest group of this high a suicide rate , that it has to be profoundly connected to mental illness .
You can be righteous all you want but I know my facts. With that, who are you trying to convince. Yourself?
I have shown parents documentaries like "Making of Madness" where psychiatrists and others in the field admit it is not an exact science. In truth, it is money motivated and a roulette table. I feel for the parents or patients who have been duped by the mental health system, psychologist, or psychiatrists. It not easy for them to admit, "I should not have put my son or daughter on Ritalin or an anti-depressant." I have seen them struggle with this point. It's sad.
Oh, I wish I had you for backup when my wife's sisters and husbands come to visit. Three of them are PhD psychologists and one is a psychiatrist. We have some very intense discussions. I appreciate your response. It makes sense to me.
You're welcome. I can imagine those intense discussions. One time I spoke with a child psychiatrist and ask if he had any successes. He couldn't think of one. He works at a large and highly-respected hospital in my city.
There is no such thing as gender dysphoria it is a made-up word and added to the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders (DSM) by a voting system. What is voted in is a system of classification of symptoms that is drastically different from, and foreign to, anything in medicine. None of the diagnoses are supported by objective evidence of physical disease, illness, or science.
You are definitely the pot calling the kettle black. I have documented proof psychiatry is a fraud, so what? What are you so afraid of? That it is true?
Marketing of Madness on YouTube.
Of course a lot of mental health talk is just talk . I agree there , Yet it's also very easy to they say " Mental health " lied to me once so they are always lying ? As if a doctor lied once and said I had a cold but I really had the flu ,so all doctors lie ?
So then how do you address the term mental health ? Let's associate mental health and crime , for years we've all been saying we need a comprehensive mental health system to stop violent crimes in schools , in our youth . Now in the Trans- issue we say "Oh No , there is no such thing "? Little bit of liberal hypocrisy there wouldn't you say?
I think the important thing in the trans argument is the welfare of the individuals. If you believe yourself to be something else, there is no way for others to change that. But, although I want you to be happy, you should also want me to be happy. There's the problem. What will make you happy? It does appear that a large percentage in the lgbt community are unhappy and evidence shows that attempts to alleviate that unhappiness with medication and surgery are not accomplishing that goal. We need to support them in the search for why.
I get a biological male wishing he had boobs, wanting pretty clothes and high heels. Wanting to make up his face. Wishing he were a woman instead. And vice versa. But, as hard as that individual attempts to make the dream come true it will always fail on some level. And to insist society pretend that wishes were fishes is unfair. There has to be another way.
I read an article the other day about a trans guy dating a straight one. He was scared to death because he knew he would soon have to share the fact. Another trans was commiserating because they felt he would soon be discriminated against. So, the lgbt community wants to be accepted for what they are and be true to that. But it is wrong for a straight person to stay true to their nature. It's unfair and selfish.
Another article was about a woman at a gym. Horrified that a supposedly transgender man was using the locker room. He was spending way to much time in there and had a habit of exposing himself to the women. I guess he was being true to his nature but, was this fair to the heterosexual and modest women?
We are in murky waters. Feeling around in the dark trying to find a happy median. But, those who feel different, sexually, need to have some consideration for those who don't. There is irrefutable evidence that those in these communities, except for the lesbian community, do not share the main stream idea of happiness resulting from a monogamous relationship, mainstream perception of multiple partners or what is considered healthy in terms of behavior within a relationship. I get it. Once you step out of the box you encounter a variety of personalities who reside there too. You are exposed to things few of us have seen. You have to struggle to find happiness in that environment. But, if you want to be accepted everywhere it's a pipe dream. No one else gets that treatment and demanding it is a recipe for disappointment.
What's so hard about having empathy for people who are not like you and trying to make their lives a little better by being nice to them?
The cruelty being expressed in this forum is sad.
Seriously??? I've said let people be who they are. Just don't create new words to confuse the issue.
The total lack of consideration or thoughtfulness displayed in your comment is sad.
Oh.......... Kenna , Now we find out where you're going with this thread .
This morning I read that Mental health therapists are saying there is an sharp uprise tic in TAD , --- Trump Anxiety Disorder---- . I didn't even know there was such a thing . I mean "Trump Derangement Syndrome " sure but ..........................
Now we're going to discount the entire mental health industry for what ? Because , If we have to admit that TAD exists then we have to admit not only that there IS a legitimate mental health system but that they are right about TAD and the left ?
Very Tricky Kenna !
No problem , And I think that ,that is the greater problem with trans people ? IN THAT THEY WANT ME TO ACCEPT THEIR CLAIMS , mainstream America , I believe , doesn't care what anyone wants to be , to believe , to change or alter of their own realities . But the real problem arises when you [they ] expect me to admit that all that I have ever known as reality , Isn't reality .
That this isn't a rock ;
When everything we've ever been taught to believe is "wrong ". When every experience we've even experienced is wrong ,That this photo above ; no,no no, isn't actually a rock , it's a flower ?
We live in the 21rst century where most people accept other people's innocuous claims , he wants to be a clown , she wants to be an astronaut , they want to be olympic dancers , this child wants to be a undersea monster slayer .................
You can do anything you want to do in life except to change my perception of reality .
I could send you the DVD, but timewise, the YT is more efficient. I have submitted my documentation. The movie is filled with facts and evidence. If you chose not to watch it and see the facts, that is your choice, not mine.
A "researcher "who bases and entire argument on one U -Tube documentary against an entirely effective health care industry ?
Got anything more ?
Ohhhh, I didn’t realize it was an actual DVD! That changes everything then....
I love documentaries but you have to be really skeptical of “facts” that are presented sometimes. There’s a really good documentary about making documentaries in North Korea - it exposes how much propaganda can exist within them.
Anyway, you can find documentaries with “facts” about how vaccines cause autism and documentaries with “facts” about how the earth is actually flat.
A movie presenting you with something and calling it the truth doesn’t actually make it truth.
Whatever, it's your choice.
I have noticed a trend among young people coming out of high school who are beginning to use different gender pronouns to describe themselves, regardless as to whether or not they even attempt to dress or act like the opposite sex.This is mainly with females who say they are males. A girl who acts like a girl, talks like a girl, giggles like a girl, and dresses like a girl wants people to use male pronouns.
I think they are trying to make a fad out of a serious mental condition, and in my view they are marginalizing the people who actually feel they are not the gender that they were born into.
This has caused a lot of confusion in the workplace. There is a lot of fear that people will be fired if they even try to talk about it. I feel it's some kind of power play that drags people into a fake or disingenuous scenario just to see if others will play along. And the threat of loosing their job forces the issue to go unchallenged.
Being transgender (or claiming to be) is definitely a trend among high school students, and as you mentioned, especially girls. Unfortunately, autistic girls are over-represented in this tend, as are girls who have been sexually assaulted, or who have mental health issues such PTSD, bi-polar, and OCD. Parents of these teens believe the transgender self-diagnosis their kids make is not accurate, but it is against the current political climate for doctors and therapists to do anything but affirm the teen's opposite-sex identity and encourage (or pressure) the parents to do the same. Anything else is considered conversion therapy, even if the teen never before showed any signs of wanting to be the opposite sex.
Here is one mother's tragic story: https://4thwavenow.com/2018/06/07/why-i … -to-a-man/
A few doctors are starting to speak out, saying they see possible social contagion among these teens, but many are fearful of being blackballed or losing their jobs and reputations and feel they must remain quiet.
As far as the pronoun issue in the workplace, the same issue is cropping up in schools. This may be one reason why some teens find being trans alluring -- it puts a degree of power and control in the hands of teens who are typically low on the social totem pole.
`Hello Smartand fun,
"As far as the pronoun issue in the workplace, the same issue is cropping up in schools. This may be one reason why some teens find being trans alluring -- it puts a degree of power and control in the hands of teens who are typically low on the social totem pole."
That is such an interesting thought. Of course I say that because I can see the logic of it.
I'm really amazed that there are so many of one party who take issue with anything from the right at all ? No ......I'm really not , I mean let's think about this for a minute after viewing this post one more time ;
Look at each photo and then when you're done , Tell us all where is it written that anything I post is a lie , that I, me , ahorseback is the only one that interjects partisanship into the picture .
Am I in the wrong forum ? Let's see....um.....politics and social issues.......Um .....nope !
What is there to say about this? A man in Canada legally changed his gender so he could get cheaper car insurance. You CAN'T make this stuff up.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/33709/ca … gn=crowder
So one person who abuses a situation is indicative of all people who identify in that group? I just want to make sure I have this straight.
Just so this hits home for you. If one Ukranian commits a murder, am I justified in implying that all Ukranians are murderers? Here's a link:
https://www.ranker.com/list/famous-seri … /reference
It appears that there are a lot of Ukranian serial killers.
I think we have an obligation to investigate whether or not Ukranians murder disproportionately to the rest of the population. We should then do stories about this topic and cover news stories about Ukranian murderers whenever we can.
Eventually, you know what happens, people develop a tragic and unfortunate impression that Ukranians are dangerous and tend to be murderers. Furthermore, perhaps some of those people will advocate for the Ukraine being wiped off the face of the earth due to its high rate of murderers or maybe the U.S. government would prefer to let them all die since they're a country of murderers.
Furthermore, Ukranians CHOOSE to be Ukranians, so if things are difficult in their country, instead of complaining and asking for help, shouldn't they just leave? After all, being Ukranian is a choice.
A little off topic. Discussion is about referring to a person with the pronoun they identify with rather than their biological gender. Your intentional attempt to dig at my ethnicity is noted. It doesn't upset me. It makes me feel sorry for you. It's obvious you've lost the argument and are reaching at anything possible to distract people from seeing it. I see it and I'm sure many others do as well. Peace be with you.
The kind of twisted, inhumane logic used to denigrate people dealing with difficult, biological issues is what I used to craft my response. It is not what I believe about Ukranians in any way, shape, or form. Yet, it is how some in this forum seem to treat groups of other people. In fact, I have you to thank for opening my eyes to a problem in the world of which I was largely unaware.
What ever happened to do unto others? How about trying to empathize with the difficult circumstances people find themselves in and doing your best to help them or, at least, be nice to them?
Instead what we get in this forum is thinly-veiled hatred toward a particular group for trying to live their lives.
Frankly, I don't agree with the mandated pronoun thing. It's a bit off-the-rails in terms of managing people with diverse views. However, to express vitriol and hatred toward people, to denigrate them and joke about hardships they may be enduring, is inhumane, as my analogy has attempted to point out.
I have interacted with many transgender folks and what you learn pretty quickly is how hard it is for them to exist in the world. You can certainly ignore them if that is easier for you. There's nothing wrong with that. But just trying to be decent is the least we can do in a world where they are ridiculed, people advocate for their death, and they are regularly beaten or maligned in public.
"But just trying to be decent is the least we can do in a world where they are ridiculed, people advocate for their death, and they are regularly beaten or maligned in public." For a minute there I thought you were talking about the supporters of President Donald Trump. I think pretending a person is a male or a female when they're not does more harm than good. You need to realize...there are many people who regret changing their bodies to appear to be another sex. If they had the proper counseling, they may not have done such a thing. https://www.newsweek.com/transgender-wo … ery-676777
You really wonder why such hatred is directed at Donald Trump when he and his supporters regularly express such disdain and outright hatred for virtually every group that might have some kind of difference from white, European males? The hatred that upsets you so much isn't organic. It's a response. The hatred that upsets me isn't a response. It's organic. We're talking about hatred of transgender folks based on who they are and how they were born.
Even Donald Trump himself made a joke about Mike Pence wanting to see homosexuals obliterated from existence. Mike Pence seems to believe that homosexuals should be killed. Is that the kind of person who deserves respect and decency?
Look, you can either express hatred and ridicule or you can express empathy and understanding.
As for the subject at hand, it is complex. I have little doubt that there is much we don't understand about it. I am fortunate to have been born male and heterosexual without any confusion. I simply accept that there are people who are not as lucky and I try not to judge them, but to treat them fairly and afford them the same rights and opportunities as anyone else.
"You really wonder why such hatred is directed at Donald Trump when he and his supporters regularly express such disdain and outright hatred for virtually every group that might have some kind of difference from white, European males?" I applaud your imagination. If you disagree with someone it doesn't mean you hate them. If you think something is wrong it doesn't meant you hate it. You imagine this hatred and that justifies your own hatred. How sad. Now we are off topic once again. What about the transgender people who regret doing it after it's done? Didn't respond to that one...you were too busy justifying your hatred.
So, if Mike Pence wants to hang all gay people, as President Trump joked, gay people should be okay with that? That's not hatred? How is that not hatred? He's opposed equal rights and laws that ban discrimination against homosexuals his whole life. That's not a disagreement.
And I did respond to the subject at hand. I said the issue is complex, so there is going to be a wide range of circumstances and outcomes. Because you find one article about one topic that supports your notion that there's something wrong with it does not mean you can conclude something from it necessarily.
And I find your assertion that when you disagree with somebody about their right to exist and their basic human rights that you somehow deserve respect for that. I think most people react with hatred, understandably.
Myself, I waste no time in hate mode. You may think otherwise, but I am merely employing rhetorical devices to spur debate.
Are you aware of what it takes before you can even get gender reassignment surgery?
It's not like you just walk into a hospital and choose it off a menu.
Again, you have not addressed the many people who have had transgender surgery and regret it. It is an upward trending number.
You are suseptable to fake news. You need to spend time thinking about what is actual proof in a story. Anonymous sources prove nothing, you want it to, but it doesn't.
“President Donald Trump once joked in private that Mike Pence "wants to hang" gay people, according to a profile of the vice president in The New Yorker on Monday. The story, citing two anonymous sources. The New Yorker piece is filled with unsubstantiated, unsourced claims that are untrue and offensive.”
https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out … ys-n811086
“And I find your assertion that when you disagree with somebody about their right to exist and their basic human rights that you somehow deserve respect for that. I think most people react with hatred, understandably.”
Again, I think you are talking about supporters of President Donald Trump, Christians as well as conservatives.
Your statement makes no sense. It is based on a love of drama and assigning victim status to people who meet your criteria and fulfill your need to feel as if you're championing a cause. It does not have to be a cause based on anything real. It does not have to do with facts, truth or reality. This is the way of the liberal.
Your entire defense is hysterical to me. You talk about fake news and then use Newsweek and NBC as proof. Aren't those both part of the fake news media? So when are those sources fake news and when aren't they? It would seem that they're real news when they agree with you and fake news when they print stuff you don't like.
The article you site is proof of nothing and kind of ridiculous. Did you even read it or just read the headline? It cites one doctor in Serbia. So one doctor in Serbia who says something is proof of an epidemic?
Do you know what the requirements are in Serbia for gender reassignment surgery?
Do you know the statistics in the U.S. for this same phenomenon? In other words, what are the statistics of regret in the U.S?
I think, based on the article you cite, there might be some concern for those in Serbia getting the surgery, which might possibly have something to do with the established pre-surgical procedures they go through (which, I would guess, are not as extensive as what transgender folks go through in the U.S.). Reading articles like this and drawing conclusions that apply to larger groups requires a more in depth reading of the article. If we just draw conclusions based on headlines, the conclusions we draw are most likely to be wrong.
And as far as persecution of Christians and conservatives, I would argue that those who oppose Christians and conservatives are generally reacting, rather than initiating. As an example, gay people are reacting to being persecuted by Christians and conservatives, not initiating the confrontation. I feel that this is the case in the majority of situations in which Christians and conservatives feel persecuted.
And btw, an anonymous source is a source who doesn't want to be identified. It doesn't mean the information is wrong. Reporters use anonymous sources all the time and it is does not, as President Trump has brainwashed his supporters into believing, mean that the information is incorrect. In order for the information to be valid, a good reporter can use two anonymous sources if the information given is independently verified. In other words, a newspaper should only print information from an anonymous source if the information is independently verified.
Ah, the liberal conundrum. If I provide a news article from Fox or a conservative website, you dismiss it because it's right wing propaganda. If I provide an article from the mainstream media you mock it and say "isn't this fake new?" So, you're going to put your fingers in your ears, close your eyes and says "No, no, no, nothing exists unless it fits how I see it." So, you are an arrogant American who believes no professional from any other country has any value. I suppose if it is from an American source you won't believe it. There have been many studies to prove my point, most have been done in Europe and Asia. There is a current study being done by USC on transgender regret, but it will take time for the results. I can't provide any publication because no matter the source, you won't believe it.
"Christians and conservatives are generally reacting, rather than initiating" I disagree. Every visit a Muslim majority country? It's an eye opener.
As someone who worked as a journalist for years, I can tell you using a quote from an anonymous source should be backed up with information to support the quote. When this isn't done, an anonymous source is highly suspect. It could easily be made up. Trust me, Since the only proof Vice President Mike Pence made a statement is an anonymous source, the quote is highly suspect. To be valid, it would require having other named sources or writing or video confirming this quote. An honest journalist won't let an anonymous source quote stand alone. They know it will be perceived as fake news, because in this case, that's what it is...nothing provided to back it up.
You are right about the conundrum, but I'm not the one calling a portion of the news media "fake", so you have to live with the problem you've created. The right has basically said no news source is trustworthy and the only thing that's important is personal opinion.
But let's assume the article you're referencing is exactly correct.
It represents the same thing that you do regularly and, frankly, the entire news media does all the time - finds one instance of something happening and uses it to represent a wider problem. This is the same rationale being used to deny climate change/global warming. 99% of all climate scientists may agree on something, but if I can find one article about one scientist who disagrees, that proves it's not real. I reject that kind of logic. If that logic works, then the article I gave you about Ukranian serial killers proves that we need to be concerned about Ukranians penchant for serial killing. It's not true. Ukranians ARE NOT DISPROPORTIONATELY SERIAL KILLERS!!
That article represents what it represents - a potential problem based on one doctor's experience of gender reassignment regret in Serbia. And since I don't know what the gender reassignment protocols are in Serbia prior to surgery, I can't make an informed conclusion about the issue.
The protocol in the U.S. is that the candidate must live as a member of the opposite sex for one year before the surgery is considered. If that length is one week in Serbia, then maybe that's the source of the issue. I had a co-worker who was trying to get the surgery, but he refused to live as a woman for the year and was denied the surgery, as far as I know.
It is much closer than you might know to walking into a clinic and choosing it off a menu. Gone are the days when transgender patients are required to undergo therapy or live as the opposite sex before accessing hormones or surgery.
With ICATH, patients can access cross-sex hormones in as little as one visit. Surgery can be scheduled within a visit or two, as well. The surgery is likely a few months out, though, if not several months or more. But it can be scheduled within a visit or two.
With ICATH, there is no psychotherapy required to access hormones or sex-change surgeries, and no health diagnostics are required, as long as the patient (or their parents, if the patient is under 18) sign the informed consent form.
A recent case was reported of an XY individual who appears female and gave birth to a child, so tell me more about chromosomes always matching gender.
Not that I care, I will call a person whatever they want. What do I care?
My position exactly. And a person who might have some religious objection has the absolute right to say something like: "I'm very religious and don't believe in somebody being transgender, but I will do my best to treat you exactly like I treat everyone else."
I think everyone is more than willing to accept anyone as they present themselves. That is not an issue. I think the problem arises when one expects to be referred to by a pronoun which makes no sense, at casual glance. I've seen people dressed as men, complete with heavy facial hair expect to be referred to as she. One offs, definitely, but these are the examples people stick on.
Now, we have extra pronouns being thrown out. Which will only create conflict. These additional pronouns, in my opinion, serve no purpose. What reason do we have for gender neutral pronouns? We should all be gender neutral in the workplace. Outside of it we are free to express our sexuality however we please.
Well, we disagree. It is exactly because people ARE NOT willing to accept people for who they are that we have so many problems.
If it helps somebody feel better about him or herself to be referred to in some particular way, I am more than willing to try my best. To mandate such a thing in the workplace? That's a bit weird. The workplace should be about working and treating people equally, not spending one's time turning it into some kind of utopia.
I get that and, on an individual basis we should try and be respectful of the wishes of each other. But, I see trouble. What of the person we rarely see, or people on the peripheral edges of our acquaintance? It's easy to remember he/she. But if we forget the particular pronoun preferred by a particular person is that offensive? Are we then judged insensitive? Or worse?
Life is difficult enough without setting ourselves up for confusion and failure.
No, it's not offensive. I have regular contact with a transgender person and his preference for pronouns has changed and I have had difficulty referring to him properly (sometimes using "her" instead of "him"). So I am guilty on this front. People can just do their best and try to be helpful instead of hurtful.
I don't see anyone as attempting to be hurtful by insisting two pronouns is fine. Since the ones up for discussion in this forum are ' gender neutral' I'm not certain your him/her dilemma is pertinent anyway.
There's a woman where I come from who grew up as a guy and changed sex, or clothing. Not sure. I don't know what is under it. She presents as a woman in her dress so we refer to her as she. It's a conservative community and I don't know one soul who insists that person is a guy. She dresses as a woman, appears to accept being called a woman.
This hoopla by the left does not take into account that conservative communities were already, for the most part, letting people dictate the pronoun without having to prove their genitalia corresponds. I think, from a conservative view, we just don't want to discuss your genitalia. Tell us who you want to be seen as and we will see you as such.
It isn't even as simple as expose yourself either literally or figuratively and we will see you as you have exposed yourself to be because we also have no problem accepting a cross dresser. You're a she while dressed as such.
People who don't afford such courtesies are far and few between. I find those on the left who claim otherwise as either blind or willfully ignorant.
Children are a different story. Conservative ideology leans toward protecting our kids until they are old enough to make their own decisions on sexuality. Since studies show that the vast majority of children who feel gender confused grow out of it I don't think it is such a terrible thing to not have boys in girls bathrooms,and vice versa, until after puberty. Since the parents of one child should not dictate to the parents of 99 children. That's a high percentage since less than 1% of kids have been diagnosed with the feeling of being in the wrong sex body.
I basically agree with most of that.
My kid was in daycare with a little girl who was really a little boy biologically. Everyone just did what was asked of the mother and referred to the child as a girl. That seemed fine. This child was four, so even though I am pretty damn liberal in my social views, I did have a hard time comprehending what was going on.
It's just a difficult subject and I don't know what the right answer is. Do we take the child away from the parent and put it through some kind of conversion therapy? Do we dictate that you dress as the child's biological sex? Is the parent damaging the child somehow by allowing the child to think that the child should be a girl?
For some people, sexuality is very clearly defined and for others, it's fluid. I don't think we can force each other to understand necessarily, but we can have laws that dictate fairness.
I agree that laws should be in place to ensure fair treatment. I disagree with Obama era laws. Where children are concerned. We adults can deal with differences.
Anyone man or woman , who thinks of themselves so little as to be expected to look at a man standing six feet tall with a beard ,a dress , heels and carrying a shoulder bag going into the little girls room , And to call out to that dude and say "Yes -Mam , that is the little girls room for you "
Is not only weak in nature , integrity and character but of such distorted character as to render them untrustworthy of being relied upon by his fellow man for well.......about anything at all.
Over forty percent of transgender people's lives end in suicide , And you're all acting out like it's a very natural progression of a soul as if they were going to the prom , mowing the lawn or drinking a cup of coffee ,instead of altering not only their own reality BUT yours too ?
Uhhhmmmm Nope , but Thanks .
Well folks, how about if a dinosaur weighs in on the this topic.
As the thread was started, it was a matter of 1) how realistic is the expectation of everyday communications to include a string of preferred pronouns; Hi, I'm Zach, I'm a zhe. And then, 2), is transgender, or gender confusion a real thing.
It seems there was a consensus that the introductory pronoun proclamation was a bit silly, and 2), there is a lot of hostility and confusion over the male vs. female categorization.
There have been lots of "gut" thoughts, and lots of linked physiological "new era" determinations.
XY and XX chromosome theories, transgender mental considerations, the ambiguities of modern day "intersex" delineations, and yada yada yada. Complete with links to authoritative studies of the "mind authorities" evaluations of the intricacies of exactly what is male and what is female determinations.
This certainly is an example of longing for the good ol' days when a penis meant you were a guy and a vagina meant you were a girl. It seems that now, they only mean that if you "feel" like those determinations fit you.
On the earliest points about the pronouns, even this dinosaur will agree that it is just basic courtesy to refer to someone by the pronouns they prefer - until it comes to this zhe or they stuff, beyond that you are asking for more than you are entitled to.
Consider this; If you are speaking in numerical terms, in a nation of over 320 million, the zhes and theys are probably about .001 %, (if that), of humans affected by the discussion. So, are the zhes and theys, asking too much to demand more than the common courtesy of using a pronoun that they find comfortable? And this dinosaur says asking to be called zhe or they is beyond considerations of common courtesy.
This dinosaur doesn't care what your sexual considerations are. If you look like a he or a she, that is what I will call you - unless you let me know you prefer otherwise, then, out of courtesy, I will honor your preference - unless it is zhe or they, or one of those other completely incomprehensible choices. Then I will tell you I am incapable of seriously addressing you as such, and offer that my feelings are as important as yours, so maybe it is better if we don't interact.
And that, is this dinosaur's perspective. I will not argue with being courteous when it is reasonable, but asking me to call you zhe or they is not reasonable - to me. My feelings are as important as yours. And all this other super complicated medical and mental science authority's determinations - the mind's sexual ambiguities is not germane to the issue of daily life interactions - beyond your push to normalize something which is no where near normal..
Ha! So says T-Rex.
Make that two dinosaurs, dinosaurs that are in complete agreement. If you wish to make up new words you are completely free to use them (although your communication may suffer), but you have no right to expect others to do so.
We're too old for this "new age" stuff Wilderness.
There are a lot of our old-time norms that needed to be tossed aside, and judging from your participation, I think I can say both of us have done so in the face of reasonable arguments. But sometimes, what is being promoted as real, and reasonable, is just not. And too many times, the desires of one are promoted as more important than the desires of 1000. Life just doesn't work that way.
So we will trudge on until the last peat bog consumes us. Hopefully it will be something more life-affecting than zhe or they that does us in.
I had not heard of the term "zhe" until it was used here; it was not suggested for use by the transgender person who conducted our training. I have no problem with a non-binary person requesting the use of they/them/their pronouns. It makes sense to me that they might not want to be referred to by either he or she.
Here is a simple explanation I found:
“You’re only one person! How does that work?”
It’s really, really simple. In English, we already use singular “they” all the time when the gender of a person is unknown. Say you see fifty bucks on the ground and pick it up. You might say:
“Oh, Desmond dropped their money here. I’ll set it aside for them, I bet they are looking everywhere!”
“I’m fine with non-binary people, but I don’t believe in singular they pronouns. It makes no sense.”
Not only are you on the wrong side of history, you’re also on the wrong side of English, my friend.
Major dictionaries have recognized singular they as grammatically correct for years, including the Oxford English Dictionary, Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary, and dictionary.com. The word “they” has been used as a singular pronoun since at least the 16th century, and some argue it goes back even earlier. We’re not making up new words and grammar here. The AP Style Guide has even started to allow the usage of singular they in cases where a subject doesn’t identify as male or female.
Clearly, it makes sense to a lot of people who know a lot about the English language, so I don’t know why everyone gets so hung up on this.
https://www.teenvogue.com/story/they-th … s-answered
Just another point of view for the dinosaurs' consumption. :-)
... and he did take a bite of it PrettyPanther. It didn't digest. Regardless of the "dictionaries' authorities, (and I would suggest the AP Style guide might have completely different motivations), with the most rare of circumstances, they and them are still plural to me. (as a note, I disagree with your Desmond example, unless Desmond is assumed, (by pre-transgender pronoun debates common usage), to indicate more than one person, like a he/she and her/him couple or group, then using "their" is incorrect, if only because of it's awkwardness and "common usage inference). But, remember, we are talking about a time past, not today's new modern world where orange is the new black
I freely admitted that I would, out of courtesy, refer to folks by whatever he or she pronoun they preferred. Hell, I would even go the zhe route if asked. It causes me no harm to do so. And would make me feel good to offer that courtesy to someone it was important to.
But, as previously mentioned, I think my feelings are at least as important as theirs, and asking me to use they and them for a single person makes me uncomfortable. It feels awkward, and, it also makes me feel a forced submissiveness. Doesn't that also warrant consideration? They are asking too much. If they cannot accept a middle-ground, then why am I the dinosaur for refusing to completely give-in to whatever is being demanded?
Your turn, tell me why their feelings are more important than mine.
Their feelings are not more important than yours. If you use the pronouns "they/them/their" for an individual, would it cause you great pain? Would that pain be equivalent to, say, being referred to as she/her for the rest of your life?
"....why am I the dinosaur for refusing to completely give-in to whatever is being demanded?" I don't think you are a dinosaur. You identified yourself as a dinosaur in a previous post, so I thought it would be okay to lightheartedly refer to you that way. :-)
Ha! Now you know the dinosaur reference was my own PrettyPanther. What is the answer to the same question if I substituted "wrong?"
"...why am I wrong for refusing to completely give-in to whatever is being demanded?"
Am I now to peg the scale of "pain" before deciding whether my feelings should be only partially or completely ignored?
I know that last statement could be painted very negatively, but consider what preceded it. I don't think it is insensitive or hateful to also demand that when one is demanding change of the many, then that "one" must also consider the feelings of the many.
Add to that my "dinosaur" thought that applying a term most commonly used to refer to a plural - to a single, is silly.
ps. Of course it was alright for you to refer to me as a dinosaur, all my other friends do
Cultural shifts are happening very quickly, which I think is difficult for a lot of people.
I think it's good to make an effort not to marginalize people though, even if they only represent .001 % of the population, and even if it's a bit difficult and a bit clumsy.
That aside, I think gender-neutral English pronouns are inevitable. As assumptions about gender become less useful and social attitudes change, the language will naturally change to reflect that. We've seen it before with changes to job titles (fireman/fire fighter etc).
English has always evolved in this way. In archaic English every noun was either masculine, feminine or neuter, so there were three different words for "the" depending on gender (still the case in modern German). These gender-related rules disappeared from English as part of the evolution of the language. Perhaps we're seeing the same with gendered pronouns.
So it's possible one of your medieval ancestors sat in a tavern somewhere complaining about this modern gender-neutral word "the", which sounded all wrong to his ears. It's also possible he consoled himself with a nice mead.
Don, I understand and agree with most your points, (did you mean 'thee' instead of "the?"), but, and this is the reason I offered my thoughts as that of a dinosaur facing a new age, I am not sure your fireman vs, firefighter was an applicable example. That was a singular to singular example, similar, (I think) to the he/she to zhe comparison.
However, I am still sticking with the thought of silliness when demanding a commonly, and probably universally accepted plural is now to be accepted as a singular - by the many, to accommodate the one, (figuratively speaking).
By your logic concerning the marginalization of a small ".001%," there should be no limit to the expectations of what can be demanded of a society by a minority.
By my logic, the acceptance of she for a he, and he for a she, and even that crazy zhe, is a fair effort to be tolerant, considerate, and to not marginalize, but for the potentially marginalized to expect any demand to be accepted is as wrong as a refusal to accept the he/she switch-up.
As for that ancestor and the mead, it reminds me of a current Capitol One credit card commercial; A "Founding Fathers-type" meeting is portrayed with one turning to the others - displaying his Smart Phone notification that the Louisiana Purchase had been completed.
No I meant to say "the". In old English every noun had a gender. So instead of "the" you would say se, þæt or sēo, depending on the "gender" of the noun you were referring to.
German is one of the languages English derives from, and these rules still exist in modern German. Der, die and das refer to male, female and neuter gendered nouns respectively (I have no idea what makes a noun male, female etc. it just is).
English replaced these rules with a gender-neutral word "the". So I was speculating that to someone in the middle ages old enough to remember the previous forms, "the" may have sounded grammatically incorrect to their ears.
All this to say that, even though forms of grammar may sound "wrong" to our ears, it won't sound as wrong to the next generation and the one after that. Instead what sounds "right" to us will likely sound archaic at some point in the future.
None of this is relevant to what to do in a modern workplace though. Personally, in this particular case, I'd go with the flow.
No one has the right to create new language and then demand others use it in any context . Once you get to know someone through work , school , play or club , THEN you might wish to address them as they have politely requested , as long as I am not expected to reinvent my reality .
You want be called HE but look and act like princess Diana , you may have a problem around where I live . Just saying , in fact , its all pretty ridiculous .
Everyone uses singular 'They,' whether they realize it or not
How about an example Islandbites. Just thinking about it for a minute - when referring to a single person, or a situation that refers to a single person I can't think of one,
The closest I can come is "They did this or that" without having a clue whether "they" is one person or a thousand. A transference, if you will. from the actions of a single person to many persons, often to exaggerate a point.
Hmm... maybe. And maybe I am just being stubborn when I say that - in your example, my first thought would have been "they" only if I felt more than one was involved in whatever was done. Otherwise I probably would have said someone before thinking of "they."
Given the discussion and my stance in it, I can't ignore the "stubborn" factor, it is a trait, but I don't think it is just that in this answer.
I'm thinking of the amorphous "they". "They" buried the 100 mpg car decades ago. "They" refuse to use Tesla's free energy. "They" are always doing something evil to us. An unknown and unspecified "they", whether a single person or a group.
Okay, I got it, but I have to backtrack a bit, (thanks to Islandbites' link). I was sloppy when I got sidetracked on the singular vs. plural thing. Prior to that, my comments were all intended to be relative to the context of the OP - personally addressing someone.
I am sure you will see my reply to Islandbites - that explains what I mean.
GA, you used one and I quoted it.
Btw, this is a good article.
https://stroppyeditor.wordpress.com/201 … ular-they/
In the creation of this entire thread , many are oblivious or willingly showing ignorance that the english language evolves constantly , it doesn't need much prodding , pushing or pulling . Our language always has adapted , adjusted and self altered without the ultimate use of modern P.C., Yet we have an element of our society today that's not happy if it cannot affect immediate , media driven and legally mastered change right NOW ! Just to suit them ?
I believe this is a line in the sand moment. Creating a class for 'how I feel' sets society up for endless claims of 'micro aggressions' (made up word I don't agree with either).
I say be who you are and deal with it. A quick Google search of 'what is a person who is a them' brings up multiple hits for narcissist. Nothing comes up on the present discussion. Should narcissists make public policy?
Watch the media , the liberal ideology , And you will see the ultimate agenda . Everything has to be stuffed down the throat of the opposition .One, Is it just about accepting change ? Or Two , is it simply about the P.C. a collective personal attention ?
I vote # 2.
"... a singular (neutral) pronoun
So says your perspective.
I will stick with mine on this particular example.
Not mine. It is a fact that 'they' is used in a singular (neutral) form too.
You may not want to address a person as "they" and that's your right.
Transgender Pronouns ? Hmmm.
I guess too many people here are absolutely bored out of their socks, including the transgenders !
You might be right ahorseback - if you are speaking of the recent available selection of thread topics.
If one is identifies as a Woman, one uses the pronouns she/her/hers.
If one identifies as a Man, one uses he/him/his.
If one identifies as both a Woman AND a Man, one uses it/it's.
She is going to the store.
He is going to the store.
It is going to the store.
Give the sock to him.
Give the sock to her.
Give the sock to it.
The sock is his.
The sock is hers.
The sock is it's.
If there are conjoined twins who have never been separated from birth, then the pronouns them/they/theirs are used.
The conjoined twins are outside enjoying the sunshine. It is good for them.
They will soon come in. It will soon be their bedtime. Give them two cups of water when they are in bed.
Did you just label someone an , It ? Do you have any idea at all how offensive that is to our sense of self ? I mean , you just called me IT ! I mean ..........It ?
How Un politically correct ?
Hey , What if we call transgenders Un ?
.... uh, that "someone" identifies as B O T H a MAN AND a WOMAN.
I'm sure you do not.
It sounds horribly offensive. But, honestly, 'they' or 'whatever' has been used in circles I know for an individual it is difficult to identify as male or female. I've always considered that a bit offensive also. Which is one reason I'm against they/them. That might appease the person demanding it be used but it will hurt the feelings of those who are genuinely he or she who are comfortable with the term and just expressing their individuality by their dress and appearance. They'll be shoved into a category not of their choosing.
Good points ,Maybe we should address them as "whatever "..............That's a very fad-ish term of late.
It's insulting. It's basically saying you don't know that person and have no interest in knowing that person, even to the minor extent of being able to politely address that person. They/them would then become basically saying I don't want you to know me. Because, biologically there are only two choices and I'm not even going to give you the benefit of knowing that simple truth.
The whole conversation point's to this ," Call me what I want to be called and not what I am . Change your entire collective understanding of reality for my individual sense of reality . "
An entire culture of a singular language understands this as 'he or she' basically from the beginning of speaking this language , yet a few want the majority to change actual language ? Doesn't this simply go to fad terminologies ? In five or ten years gender identity won't even be a blip on the radar.
I'll just stick with he , she .
Man Bun or He Hive ?
Is it really any different than the revolving terminology demanded when referring to the race of humanity with darker skin?
Let me clarify:
Usually (always?) people do identify as one sex or the other no matter what they APPEAR to be. If a girl wears Levis jeans, a white V neck T shirt, men's orange and black Nike basketball shoes and a crew-cut hairstyle, but wears mascara to be pretty, you would not call her It because she identifies with being a female. If a guy wears a man bun, no beard, a frilly blouse, but wears masculine pants and shoes, he might not appear to be totally masculine, but he identifies with his maleness. He accepts his penis, but just chooses to dress a little flamboyantly. You really have to actually ask the person in some cases. If the person ACTUALLY tells you: "Oh, I identify as both male and female," then he/she is ASKING to be called IT!
How many identify as both?
None that I know!
- the proper thing to do is respect whatever the person identifies as. How do they identify themselves, is the question.
Once they have stated it, it is to be respected and accepted ... until it changes. Then you politely accept and respect the change.
"They/them" is NEVER proper when referring to a single individual, unless referring to a two headed creature or conjoined twins, etc.
I hope we can all agree.
You are welcome.
WOW! From the link above:
"How did I not see that this sudden increase in trans-identifying teens at her school was part of a psychic epidemic? That these vulnerable children were being medicalized by unscrupulous professionals? That most journalists were singularly focused on portraying transgenderism as a human rights issue, rather than what was obviously a psychological and sociological phenomena?
It has now been over one year since I discovered the online support I needed to realize the truth. But my daughter remains a victim. It is as if she has been brainwashed. And increasingly, it seems as if society has been brainwashed.
Thanks to Zoe’s school, her gender therapists, professional health organizations, the media, and the internet, my daughter is still certain that she is really a boy. She refuses to discuss the topic with me, and refuses to listen to my concerns. She is also convinced that medical transition is necessary for her future happiness, a process she plans to begin when she turns 18 next year. And I will be powerless to stop her.
The only thing I can do is speak the truth and encourage others to do the same.
If you are a doctor or therapist, please don’t reflexively endorse a child’s belief that s/he is the opposite sex. Children need good therapy to explore underlying issues that are likely fueling their discontent."
https://4thwavenow.com/2018/06/07/why-i … -to-a-man/
The question is:
Does anyone ever IDENTIFY as BOTH male and female?
The truth is we are both, but usually prefer one or the other.
We don't want to be an it ... completely neuter.
Or he AND she: Heshe or Shehe is usually regarded as most offensive. (Maybe that will change.)
If someone is going through a refusal to be the gender one was born as, for whatever reason, then we are obligated to comply with the person's desires to be called either He or She.
by Sarah B 6 years ago
Lawsuit Planned Over North Carolina's Ban on Transgender Bathroomshttp://flip.it/2VvUMI'm posting about this because I legitamately don't understand the controversy in several ways. Problems:1.) Do we want transgender bathrooms? 1a.) Shouldn't the goal be for people to use whichever bathrooms...
by ga anderson 2 months ago
For context, the details aren't the point, the action is. That the student appears to be an activist is only important relative to what is claimed and reported to be his 'bullying' behavior: whether it was as innocent as the student claims or as strident as his background might indicate.It...
by Peg Cole 7 years ago
You've probably seen the reports stating that the "Director of Education has ordered a suburban Chicago school to allow a boy who claims to be a girl into the girls’ locker room, whether or not the girls or their parents like it." Other states will soon be facing the same issue.Breibart...
by Rhonda D Johnson 4 years ago
A Colorado school district is being sued for discrimination. The parents of six year old Coy Matthis, who they say has identified himself as a girl since he was a toddler, are incensed that the school will not allow him to use the girls’ bathroom. An internet search for this story ...
by Grace Marguerite Williams 7 years ago
What makes so many people alarmed over the issue of transgenderism and transgenderpeople? What makes many people view transgenderism as an "aberration" instead of accepting the fact that there are people who are uncomfortable in their original gender bodies and they want to be the gender...
by JOC 16 months ago
It appears that this issue is gaining traction with a pair of stories from today. What are your thoughts on transgender athletes and sports?South Dakota bans transgender athletes from competing in women's sports:https://www.yahoo.com/news/south-dakota … 50773.htmlPenn athlete that...
Copyright © 2023 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
Copyright © 2023 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective owners.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|