Don't you consider revealing any personal information about yourself, including gender, a fad?
In mean eyes what is most important: grammatical correctness or kindness?
My comment was in response to someone indicating that certain European languages forced you to know the gender of the person you were speaking to. So, the "language game" is already ongoing. This is why people have constructed careful expansions to the grammar, to make language non-genderized.
What is the alternative? To assume everyone identifies as a male?
I'd also disagree that expanding a language carefully is what is being done here. It is unlikely towards the goal of expressing ourselves more clearly.
this is unfortunately one of those times where "I have no opinion" is an opinion
Forcing a change in language towards social agreeableness while using a lens of "there is only power" will have bad consequences.
Misgendering is a huge trigger for a lot of people, and considered a "micro agression" if you are familiar with that term. This is why most people go out of their way, just like if an ethnicity says that a certain word is a slur (i.e. c-word for Asians, or even worse for Black or African Americans) then people stop using that term.
Just like a racial minority, we must in my opinion - and most other people in the US - sit down a listen to their concerns. A male dominated society has for centuries built stigma and downplayed the significance of females and non-binary folks, such that it has even spread into the language itself.
Grammatical incorrectness is unkind to anyone who has to listen to you.
> Spanish communication is often conducted using -x ending
That’s true if by “Spanish communication” you mean NPR reporters sprinkling a couple of “Latinx”s into their English-language articles.
> even by the president
This does not make the case you might be hoping it makes.
Some languages have unfortunate misogynistic and transphobic/monogendered built-ins. This is problematic for a large minority of the LGBTQ+ population and many Native/Indigenous/First nations with different linguistic cultures. The USA is one of, if not the, most diverse country in the world with people from all over. It is to me beautiful that the country can embrace both the latinx/hispanic population and at the same time say to these marginalized groups "we hear you, we listen to you, and we understand you."
To me the fact that the WH and President Biden use these important ungenderizations is a very important step, just like the federal desegregation of schools. It demonstrates how far we have come in just two generations. I have though met many latinx people who prefer latin@ instead, while others say that it reduces the language for non-binary folks.
It is to me beautiful that the country can embrace both the latinx/hispanic population and at the same time say to these marginalized groups "we hear you, we listen to you, and we understand you."
To me the fact that the WH and President Biden use these important ungenderizations is a very important step, just like the federal desegregation of schools. It demonstrates how far we have come in just two generations. I have though met many latinx people who prefer latin@ instead, while others say that it reduces the language for non-binary folks.
Please educate me I would like to know your opinion.
"Latino" is a gender-neutral word. Gendered languages do not involve all of what "gender" per se means in the English sense. English speakers not understanding or accepting these basic facts is not reflective of the Spanish language; it is reflective of the lack of understanding and acceptance of some English speakers.
And misunderstandings are fine, as is the case with Joe Biden and the Democrats who said something which offends 40% of Latino Americans. But preaching from the pulpit of ignorance is not.
given that may of that languages are used by white people, I would go with "woke imperialistic twitter supremacy" as description.
This is imperialistic, annoying and misleading. male/female distinction is neither transphobic[1] nor misogynistic[2] nor misandrist.
[1] if you think here about referring to such people with not preferred gender - it is not something enforced by language
[2] why it would be?
It would require remaking significant part of language, it is not a minor tweak like singular they in English.
Demanding this is a runaway imperialism.
Well, in the internet no one knows you're a dog. Some women used to answer using masculine conjugation as a default, to avoid their gender to distract from the things they did or had to say. Some men did the opposite to get attention or more eager responses.
I know it's inconvenient and to some may be considered even insulting as a suggestion, and I don't think it should be the norm. However, it's still a choice you're free to make.
As a result, for girls, getting misgendered under a pseudonymous account is seen as danger that comes with the territory. And of course they take it in stride, because that's just what women do all the time.
We're coming up on twenty years since Myspace, so, anyone guessing it was a fad was wrong.
I grew up with "don't use your real name online", "don't post pictures of yourself", etc. And I still believe that's how it should be.
From https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30943039 recently (also posted https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23732384 a couple years ago):
> ...[N]etworks like Friendster, MySpace, YouTube, and, later, Facebook and Twitter were dissolving the boundaries between social groups that had long shaped personal relations and identities. Before social media, you spoke to different “audiences” — family members, friends, colleagues, and so forth — in different ways. You modulated your tone of voice, your words, your behavior, and even your appearance to suit whatever social “context” you were in (workplace, home, school, nightclub, etc.) and then readjusted the presentation of yourself when you moved into another context.
> On a social network ... all those different contexts collapsed into a single context. Whenever you posted a message or a photograph or a video, it could be seen by your friends, your parents, your coworkers, your bosses, and your teachers, not to mention the amorphous mass known as the general public. And, because the post was recorded, it could be seen by future audiences as well as the immediate one. When people realized they could no longer present versions of themselves geared to different audiences — it was all one audience now — they had to grapple with a new sort of identity crisis.