Why expend all the effort to prevent people from expressing themselves? What a waste of time and resources.
I really want less divisiveness. The world has plenty enough already.
At present we're all stuck on this rock together.
I really want less divisiveness. The world has plenty enough already.
At present we're all stuck on this rock together.
Like all the brouhaha they manufactured about trans people, a vanishingly small part of any population.
Said the person who started his comment by erasing all distinctions.
If this was a serious rationale, the agencies would have some time to make a plan and implement it (say 30 days). This is exactly to sow division and chaos, to find out who the enemies of this administration are, and who will comply without complaining to ridiculous wasteful demands.
Because being mean is a feature, not a bug, of this administration. This has everything to do with "othering" anybody who doesn't conform to the Republican notion of a normal person (ie, passes for white, heterosexual, and male; with exceptions for attractive women and Uncle Toms).
— who now has a personal vendetta against everything left-leaning because he was "robbed" an election
— for whom everything is now about using his power to punish and retaliate against his perceived enemies as well as securing for himself some sort of a "great man" legacy
— who, having learned from the last time when there were some adults in the White House, has now been careful to surround himself by spineless yes men
— who is nevertheless easy to manipulate by politically savvy people who know how to pander to his massive, yet incredibly fragile, ego.
But maybe I've just never understood what people mean about "pronouns".
The same logic is employed in both cases. The difference is that telling someone your name has no political charge to it.
You can dislike the practice of listing your pronouns, but it's perfectly ordinary to tell people how you'd like them to refer to you.
Unless someone can rile up a mob into trying to embarass a large corporation or a small business into canceling you. You have a right to free speech, but you don't have a right to be sane when there's a low-intensity riot of unhinged individuals threatening you with destitution and terror.
As is their First Amendment right.
> you don't have a right to be sane when there's a low-intensity riot of unhinged individuals threatening you with destitution
Sounds snowflakey
It's not clear that this is a protected first amendment right. You're not allowed to commit fraud just because the mode of fraud is one of communication. The words you speak may be protected, but not the outcome (fraud). Why would harassing people and ruining their lives be any more protected?
>Sounds snowflakey Sure, if that helps with your butthurt. Call me names. You think people haven't been doing that my whole life? It's been 30 or 40 years since that hurt my feelings.
If someone sets expectations or boundaries at work, and you disregard them, sure, you could be fired. Working at a particular place is a privilege, not a right. Professionalism necessitates going along to get along with people who may be from different cultures or subcultures, who may have different expectations of how they should be treated, different political views or values, who you may find annoying or frustrating. That's life.
> Sure, if that helps with your butthurt.
I think you should take a step back and reflect on this remark. You are the one who came to this conversation with complaints.
Yes it is, actually
This is how the marketplace of ideas actually works. You have bad ideas and say stupid shit, people stop listening to you, associating with you, doing business with you, enjoying your company, inviting you over, and so on. They'll sometimes even call you mean names!
All of that is the marketplace in action.
No, it's the opposite of that. Third-person pronouns are the ones people use to discuss third persons among themselves. The person who "wants their pronouns used" isn't party to the conversation. They're attempting to put their own non-name words into other people's mouths. One might make a case that you could choose your own second-person pronouns, but at least in the English language that's egalitarian, everyone's just a "you".
>or whether you'd like to be called Mr., Ms. or Mrs.
I call men "mister" out of respect. My other word for people who don't merit respect is "asshole". If you don't like the first, I'll use the second one. I don't even use "sir" if I can help it... no English lords in this country.
>You can dislike the practice of listing your pronouns,
I can do more than that now. I think I can ignore it without getting fired.
>but it's perfectly ordinary to tell people how you'd like them to refer to you.
It's not ordinary. At no point in human history, in any human language I am aware of, has anyone ever gotten to choose their own third-person pronouns. It's absurd and bizarre. I'm not required to acknowledge the existence of imaginary friends to anyone over the age of 7, I'm not required to play into other people's schizophrenic hallucinations, and I don't have to try to overcome my 50 years of habit in how English is spoken.
That's also how names work, though. As in, "Are you coming to Billy's barbeque?" when Billy is not in the conversation.
> At no point in human history, in any human language I am aware of, has anyone ever gotten to choose their own third-person pronouns. It's absurd and bizarre.
What's the realistic difference between pronouns and nicknames? Like a "Richard" going by a "Rich", or "Rick"? That's their decision, right? Or someone choosing to go by their middle name rather than their first name?
I believe this to be the actual root of the issue. You have decided some people aren't worthy of your respect (I presume because you feel they are your adversaries in a political struggle). Anything they ask of you from that point, you take issue with and blow out of proportion. They aren't people to you, they're "assholes."
You don't have to like people to respect them. You don't have to agree with them either.
> I don't have to try to overcome my 50 years of habit in how English is spoken.
Language changes. Culture changes. They don't change because people are "schizophrenic," they change because they're part of an ongoing conversation.
You don't have to like it. You don't have to change. But if you choose to resist it, you'll come off as out of touch and you'll upset or offend people. And consequently they may not want to work with you or spend time with you. You've every right to do that. But those are the consequences. And they always have been. You can accept those consequences or you can make room for the way the world has evolved, but those are your options; time waits for nobody.
Take a step back and look at how patronizing your language is. Comparing people to children. Implying they're delusional. Insisting you've got it right and refusing to budge. Doesn't that sound like the way older people have always patronized younger people? Don't you remember being younger and people talking that way about your generation?
This is where conversations about pronouns or gender always go off the tracks… If I don’t agree with someone’s concept of gender, you’re saying I don’t respect them. How do you respectfully disagree with and not use someone’s preferred pronouns? You can disagree, but not out loud?
I think you need to double check your assumptions. This isn’t a younger generation vs older generation issue. It’s mostly US (w/ Canada) and mostly a side note in politics.
How do you respect someone you disagree with? You find a way to live and let live. I'm not going to be more specific, because thinking through how that would work and coming to a decision is part of the process.
And to be clear, it goes both ways. Eg, if you look at my comments in this thread, you'll find my language is respectful if firm and that I don't make insults. That's not because of a lack of frustration. It's because I refuse to respond if my response would be disrespectful.