Gender-Neutral Pronouns

Harika

MrFinance wrote: »

Then I suppose I have decided that my preferred pronouns are "Your Majesty" or "Your Royal Highness". Either one will work for me. If you refer to me as neither I will screech and get my 'squad' after you!

Let's face it, we will very likely never meet you, so it doesn't matter to me, what pronouns were picked. Being offended and screeching is a choice here.

ZeitgeistGlee

If there was an agreed/official single set of gender neutral pronouns I'd learn/use them as needed, but I'll be damned if I have to learn every gormless teen's unique variation because it makes them feel more special and in reality it just makes people take the concept of gender-neutrality as a joke.

wexie

Harika wrote: »

Let's face it, we will very likely never meet you, so it doesn't matter to me, what pronouns were picked. Being offended and screeching is a choice here.

of course it is.

Would you say the say to the girl that lost the plot with MrFinance for calling her a girl?

MrFinance wrote: »

Agree with all the above. For example, one of the girls who attended University with me has recently identified as God only knows what. Anyway, I recently said "how's your day goin' girl?", totally forgot she identifies as a plank of wood and subjected myself to some abuse. Yes, I some how managed to trigger a group of snowflakes by greeting somebody and saying the word girl. Ridiculous carry on.

Its all alt right

Malayalam wrote: »

I lived in Kilkenny for a while as a school girl, and everyone, regardless of gender, was a lad. Groups of girls in school were addressed as ''Well, lads?'', ''Hey, lads'', ''Howzit goin' Lads,''; social commentary went along the lines of ''I just seen the lads coming up town'', and the brief and all-encompassing ''Lads'' was used almost universally as a casual greeting. I don't know if this was a brief aberration or confined to the rarified atmosphere of the Presentation Convent mid 80s :rolleyes:, or indeed if it still goes on generally in that part of the world, but maybe it would be the simple solution to a silly problem if we were all called lads for a while. I wouldn't mind. I quite liked being a lad.

Was the same in Wexford. Even the young kids playing with toys were at it. Everthing was a "lad".

Its all alt right

ZeitgeistGlee wrote: »

If there was an agreed/official single set of gender neutral pronouns I'd learn/use them as needed, but I'll be damned if I have to learn every gormless teen's unique variation because it makes them feel more special and in reality it just makes people take the concept of gender-neutrality as a joke.

It's a slippery slope. If you accept that you will use so many of a set of pronouns today, you will need to add new ones on as they breathe themselves into life. And you will have to use them or face the consequences. They will keep coming, until a generation arrives that says 'fcuk this'. The right ons of today will be looked upon the same as we look at the generations who couldn't be seen to be speaking bad of the church.

uck51js9zml2yt

I'm not pandering to peoples delusions.

Saw a guy come in in a mini skirt and long (poorly kept) hair where I worked recently. It was difficult not to laugh at the stupidity.

Harika

wexie wrote: »

of course it is.

Would you say the say to the girl that lost the plot with MrFinance for calling her a girl?

While overblown by her, he knew and ignored it. Same if I call you wickie as I am ignorant to use your real name.

Mr.H

You are born male or female. Scientifically there are only two genders.

You can dress whatever way you want. You can be in a relationship with whoever you want. Heterosexual or homosexual relations, it's your choice (in the literal sense). You can be a guyish girl or a girlish guy. All that is fine and it is what makes us unique and different.

But you literally and scientifically can not change your gender. Not possible. You can get surgery to look like the other gender but as a life form you are the gender you were born. Men who get surgery to look like women do not require the same medical needs that an actual woman requires. The same the other way around.

Just a brand new fad in a world of PC idiotism

Hector Savage

bot43 wrote: »

“I used to be with it, but then they changed what ‘it’ was, and now what I’m with isn’t it. And what’s ‘it’ seems weird and scary to me.”

Times change. I may not be fully understanding of gender fluidity/neutrality etc etc etc, but its happening so may as well embrace it, or at least try not to poo poo it entirely.

Gerrup ourra da!!!

These idiots must have a great life if they are "offended" by this crap.
The fact people are changing their language and apologising to them is just giving them more ammo.

This dictated speech is dangerous.

MrFinance

Harika wrote: »

While overblown by her, he knew and ignored it. Same if I call you wickie as I am ignorant to use your real name.

It wasn't that I had known and ignored it. You're running to assumptions, which seems to be commonplace nowadays. You can't say what I was or was not thinking at that time.

I genuinely approached her like I would any other female that I know and talk to. This was taken as a threat apparently? It's only upon further questioning to mutual friends that I found out that she finds being referred to as a female as "disgusting". Even though she has a boyfriend, is not trans, is clearly female, yet I was called a pig, etc
Funny thing is, even with the LGBT posse screeching. I would say 90% of people just laughed at them, myself included.

Harika

MrFinance wrote: »

It wasn't that I had known and ignored it. You're running to assumptions, which seems to be commonplace nowadays. You can't say what I was or was not thinking at that time.

too quote you from your earlier post:

MrFinance wrote: »

/snip/ totally forgot she identifies as a plank of wood /snip/.

So you knew it, made a mistake or ignored it, whatever. She gave out to you, what I think is overblown and a correction would be fair enough without making a scene.

MrFinance

Harika wrote: »

too quote you from your earlier post:



So you knew it, made a mistake or ignored it, whatever. She gave out to you, what I think is overblown and a correction would be fair enough without making a scene.

Please quote fully and not snippets. "Anyway, I recently said "how's your day goin' girl?", totally forgot she identifies as a plank of wood".
So in this situation, I am to remember what X numbers of snowflakes refer to themselves as and get it correct? It's worth noting that firstly, that is impossible to do. Secondly, if one makes a common mistake whilst being friendly and asking how somebody is they are subject to a tyranny of abuse?? Thirdly, I had heard to a mutual friend a few days earlier that she identifies as X, which was mentioned in passing. Yet, she had not posted this information online (which she has since). So I, and others, now must contain a sixth sense and read minds in order to be civil in a social setting??

Does that not strike you as being completely impossible?


Regarding the scene, I didn't care. However, I would not be surprised if somebody not as cool headed decided to react in a situation like that. Then it would be flipped around and thrown back at him as a hate bashing situation. Which in my opinion, is incredibly dangerous.

wexie

MrFinance wrote: »

totally forgot she identifies as a plank of wood".....
Thirdly, I had heard to a mutual friend a few days earlier that she identifies as X, which was mentioned in passing.

not just me who's curious quite what X is no?

I presume it's not actually a plank of wood? (although seeming plenty of other odd ones out there, I've seen wolf, cat, dragon, elf)

MrFinance

wexie wrote: »

not just me who's curious quite what X is no?

I presume it's not actually a plank of wood? (although seeming plenty of other odd ones out there, I've seen wolf, cat, dragon, elf)

I will not post details as it would almost certainly identify who I am to anybody attending the aforementioned University. As much as I would love to, I couldn't be arsed with the SJW's bashing further. (They're relentless).

wexie

MrFinance wrote: »

I will not post details as it would almost certainly identify who I am to anybody attending the aforementioned University. As much as I would love to, I couldn't be arsed with the SJW's bashing further. (They're relentless).

that's fair enough I guess, not really something I'd want to open myself up to either

Human Sausage

kneemos wrote: »

How did this crap get so much traction in the first place?

The "singular they" has been in use for hundreds of years, though.

Also, always love the irony of people screeching about how upset they are at others being upset. Seems they're more easily offended than they'd ever dare admit. :pac:

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

I find myself using they when I don't know the person's gender: recently, a friend of mine mentioned a friend called Lee who was meeting us at a party. It's kind of automatic to say something like "what time are they getting there?" than "what time is he or she getting there?"

As for calling someone "girl" - that's just sly trolling (although why you would want to talk to someone you believe "identifies as a plank of wood" is beyond me.

Yer Da sells Avon

If someone wanted to be referred to as 'they' or 'them', then I have no issue with that. No point in being a cunt for the sake of it. At the same time though, they'd have to be accepting of the fact that I might occasionally slip up and not use their preferred pronoun. Otherwise, they're just being a cunt for the sake of it.

super_furry

On a one on basis I think the very least you can do to recognise someone as a person is to refer to them as they ask you to.

Trans people have such a tough time of it as it is, why would you want to go out of your way to make things tougher for them?

Blazedup

What ya think of this muck on the doorstep?
S4 b (iii)

https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/bill/2018/34/eng/initiated/b3418d.pdf

Bob24

Anastasia_ wrote: »

I honestly just don't get this.

I was very involved in a group during the repeal campaign, and now the head of said group is campaigning for 'gender neutral' legislation. What do people think of this? By gender neutral I think she means that words like 'mother' should be replaced with 'child bearer' etc. Are people honestly so easily offended that they think this is necessary?

And this kind of stupidity is slowly creeping into reality just to satisfy a few “activists” who enjoy defending imaginary persecuted people.

Recently the Paris city council decided that they would stop describing a childs’ parents as mother and father on birth certificates, as it could be offending. Instead they have chosen “parent 1” and “parent 2”.

Besides the stupidity of this thing, the irony here is they will probably offend many people who are described as “parent 2” with their new rule as these people will ask why they are second in the hierarchy (whereas before parents were not ranked) :-D

MrFinance

Blazedup wrote: »

What ya think of this muck on the doorstep?
S4 b (iii)

https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/bill/2018/34/eng/initiated/b3418d.pdf

I'd hope that they are going to discuss the two genders and I'm guessing they will lightly touch on the fact that approx 1% do not fall into that demographic?

wexie

Bob24 wrote: »

Recently the Paris city council decided that they would stop describing a childs’ parents as mother and father on birth certificates, as it could be offending. Instead they have chosen “parent 1” and “parent 2”.

Besides the stupidity of this thing, the irony here is they will probably offend many people who are described as “parent 2” with their new rule as these people will ask why they are second in the hierarchy (whereas before parents were not ranked) :-D

.....I don't really know what to say to that, unless I've been understanding it wrong all these years but it was my understanding a birth can't really happen unless there is a mother and a father?

Whatever else about different family makeups a child will only ever come about because of a mother and a father? (for now at least).

Nothing against 2 gay people adopting a child but said child will by definition have a mother and a father?

What am I missing?

Harika

wexie wrote: »

.....I don't really know what to say to that, unless I've been understanding it wrong all these years but it was my understanding a birth can't really happen unless there is a mother and a father?

Yes it can, with the help of modern medicine, it is possible to have two mothers and no father. Or two fathers and no mother. Technically you still have a mother, but let's don't get into it too much.

jimgoose

It just reminds me of this line from Monty Python's "The Idiot In Society" sketch: "Ooh arr naggy gamly rangle tandie oogly noogle grobbly oog!" :pac::pac::pac:

wexie

Harika wrote: »

Yes it can, with the help of modern medicine, it is possible to have two mothers and no father. Or two fathers and no mother. Technically you still have a mother, but let's don't get into it too much.

Does that actually ever happen though? I mean in the real world rather than a lab setting?

If it does then fair enough. I'd imagine though that it doesn't (yet) in which this amending things like this is pure unadulterated nonsense.

Look at all this 'outrage' over the adoption scandal where everybody is calling out that kids have a right to know who's offspring they are?

If a child has 2 biological parents, one of which is male and the other female, I can't think of any sensible, logical reason why calling them 'mother' and 'father' could be considered even remotely offensive.

Harika

wexie wrote: »

Does that actually ever happen though? I mean in the real world rather than a lab setting?

If it does then fair enough. I'd imagine though that it doesn't (yet) in which this amending things like this is pure unadulterated nonsense.

Look at all this 'outrage' over the adoption scandal where everybody is calling out that kids have a right to know who's offspring they are?

If a child has 2 biological parents, one of which is male and the other female, I can't think of any sensible, logical reason why calling them 'mother' and 'father' could be considered even remotely offensive.

The two mother part is already happening, the two father part not, especially as you have the additional issue of a mother that is only the vessel of this process what is morally highly questionable.
I think the french law was changed because of transitioning parents and after that you might have two fathers/mothers. I know originally it were male and female still when the pronouns change for them it might cause issues. Again this is a non issue for the majority of people and only people complain who screech "Attack helicopter" (Usually if someone uses that term you know where it comes from, hey be at least creative and call yourself tree tank or something)

Bob24

wexie wrote: »

If a child has 2 biological parents, one of which is male and the other female, I can't think of any sensible, logical reason why calling them 'mother' and 'father' could be considered even remotely offensive.

In fact it could lead to interesting situations when these children need to prove who their father or mother is in a foreign country which doesn’t practice this type of thing.

Japanese visa officer: “we need evidence of who your father is”
Parisian: “here’s my birth cert”
Japanese visa officer: “I don’t see your father lister here, just two parents with no indication of which is which - I won’t make any assumption”
Parisian: “!!!”

biko

Thousands of years of evolution torn down in a generation by a bunch of gender weirdos.

wexie

Harika wrote: »

The two mother part is already happening,
the two father part not, especially as you have the additional issue of a mother that is only the vessel of this process what is morally highly questionable.

I can't imagine it's particularly common but if that's the case then fair enough.

I still don't see though any reason why the rest of us (ie. not the minuscule minority we're talking about here) should be lumped with forms stating parent 1 and parent 2. By all means have 2 versions of the form if there is a need for it.

But personally I would find it offensive to have to sign where it says parent 2 (or 1). Just as a transgender person may not consider themselves to be their child's father and wish not be thought of us such, I am my children's father and do wish to be thought of and documented as such.

Harika wrote: »

Again this is a non issue for the majority of people

I wouldn't be too sure of that. Having it one forms in Paris perhaps. I think it'd be different if people realized they can't be listed as mother or father on their child's birth cert.

Harika wrote: »

and only people complain who screech "Attack helicopter"

I'm sorry I don't know what you're referring to

Harika

wexie wrote: »

I can't imagine it's particularly common but if that's the case then fair enough.

I still don't see though any reason why the rest of us (ie. not the minuscule minority we're talking about here) should be lumped with forms stating parent 1 and parent 2. By all means have 2 versions of the form if there is a need for it.

But personally I would find it offensive to have to sign where it says parent 2 (or 1). Just as a transgender person may not consider themselves to be their child's father and wish not be thought of us such, I am my children's father and do wish to be thought of and documented as such.

parent is the overall term for mother or father, so it includes both. When you are a parent you are either father or mother. Same as tree includes oak and hazel.

wexie wrote: »

I'm sorry I don't know what you're referring to

I don't think it was you but count next time in such a discussion until someone throws that term in. :pac:

wexie

Harika wrote: »

parent is the overall term for mother or father, so it includes both. When you are a parent you are either father or mother. Same as tree includes oak and hazel.

If you really don't see a difference then I don't know what to tell you.

I'm all for people identifying whichever way they see fit* and I'll try to be accommodating in that as I think identity and happiness is important.

I do however draw the line at the point where it starts interfering with how I identify and part of that is as a father.

*I also don't really go for the whole non human thing, you'll have to forgive me for that

Harika

wexie wrote: »

If you really don't see a difference then I don't know what to tell you.

I'm all for people identifying whichever way they see fit* and I'll try to be accommodating in that as I think identity and happiness is important.

I do however draw the line at the point where it starts interfering with how I identify and part of that is as a father.

*I also don't really go for the whole non human thing, you'll have to forgive me for that

Look, should the hazel be offended cause it is called tree? Same as a father who is called parent. Or a male that is called human. Or an Irish for being called European.

wexie

Harika wrote: »

Look, should the hazel be offended cause it is called tree? Same as a father who is called parent.

Then by the same token should a m2f transgender parent be offended by being called father?

Harika

wexie wrote: »

Then by the same token should a m2f transgender parent be offended by being called father?

Cause they might not be male?

suicide_circus

One thing I didn't get during the recent referendum campaign...."trust women"...as if only women could have abortions! Fascists.

fattymuatty

Harika wrote: »

Look, should the hazel be offended cause it is called tree? Same as a father who is called parent. Or a male that is called human. Or an Irish for being called European.

Well if a male that gets called he can get offended I don't see why wexie can't get offended by not being named father on his childs birth cert.

fattymuatty

Harika wrote: »

Cause they might not be male?

How can a father not be male What definition of male are you using?

wexie

Harika wrote: »

Cause they might not be male?

I did say M2F didn't I?

So if they conceived a child, however which way that was done, that makes them, by definition, the child's father.

Now....if they wish not to be documented and perceived as such that's fine, like I already said.

There is however absolutely no argument why that should, in any way, be more important than the right of someone who is also male, and wants to be documented and known as his child's father.

How Soon Is Now

Times must be changing In after hours!

Remember back in the day (few years ago)
It was very much so "don't mention the war" when the ins and outs of these kinds subjects would get mentioned.

There where few posters in particular who would pop up almost instantly at any given time of the day if you where deemed "offensive"

gw80

Its all alt right wrote: »

Was the same in Wexford. Even the young kids playing with toys were at it. Everthing was a "lad".

Unraaill laad,
Hundred percente lad.
Haha, wexicans.

Whatever about all that ze and xe gibberish,
Does anyone think there's a case for bringing back the use of "son of" when introducing yourself to someone,
Although I think you would have to have a cool sounding name to pull it off.

Samuel T. Cogley

Personally I like the idea of a gender neutral pronoun like 'ze' purely to avoid this 'he/she' nonsense. We've lost the plural and formal pronouns in English, no reason we can't create a new one.

DEFTLEFTHAND

RebelButtMunch wrote: »

Have a look at youtube and Jordan Peterson having a row outside his campus with some liberals who seem to identify as liberal but really come across as conservative . God Forbid the people dont conform to liberal views. The left is the new right!

They're regressive leftists not liberals.

And yes far left and far right are quite similar in a lot ways. Both are authoritarian ideologies.

DEFTLEFTHAND

As with the far right, unchecked mental illness always seems to be a factor. Look at the people in the Peterson vid as an eg.

Galwayguy35

So where are all these people who want to be called by these pronouns, I've never came across anyone like that.

But then I suppose I live in a working class area with normal people thankfully.

jimgoose

suicide_circus wrote: »

One thing I didn't get during the recent referendum campaign...."trust women"...as if only women could have abortions! Fascists.

Bollocks, I forgot to be offended about that...

DickSwiveller

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

So where are all these people who want to be called by these pronouns, I've never came across anyone like that.

But then I suppose I live in a working class area with normal people thankfully.

They're just bored, attention seeking narcissists

The Legend Of Kira

RebelButtMunch wrote: »

Have a look at youtube and Jordan Peterson having a row outside his campus with some liberals who seem to identify as liberal but really come across as conservative . God Forbid the people dont conform to liberal views. The left is the new right!

Found the video you spoke of. Jordan Peterson was correct in what he said in 5.56 of the video, " its important that people are able to use their own words because that,s how we think, if the government starts legislating how we think " . Then she interupts him before he can finish his sentence, but I think what Jordan Peterson was trying to say to her was the government should,t be legislating telling people how or what to think .

Mutant z

How about just sticking to the traditional terms of male and female.

mickrock

MrFinance wrote: »

For example, people on campus are demanding now to be referred to as "'they, their, and them'".

The best alternative to "he" or "she" is "it".

"When will he be doing his exams?" becomes "When will it be doing its exams?"

I'm sure everyone would be happy with this.